Ben Ghazi.. the scandal continues (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


Phydeaux -> Ben Ghazi.. the scandal continues (4/29/2014 11:21:46 PM)



So, the email trove continues from the FOI request...

Ben Rhodes

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."

Ben Rhodes, you know Deputy National Security Adviser, brother to the president of CBS news... The only problem of course is .. it was a blatant failure of policy. And so the last peg of what I alleged at the start of this whole mess comes home. As predicted, the obama administration knowingly lied in an attempt to avoid the obvious conclusions.

This was AFTER they had been briefed by the missions deputy chief of staff that there was no protest; after having seen the actual attack.

Flat. out. lie.

As reported in American Thinker:

When State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland requested changes to the original CIA talking points to eliminate reports regarding warnings of the upcoming attacks who responded positively to her wishes? Ben Rhodes.

Stephen Hayes writes at the Weekly Standard (The Benghazi Scandal Grows:

The CIA's talking points, the ones that went out that Friday evening, were distributed via email to a group of top Obama administration officials. Forty-five minutes after receiving them, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland expressed concerns about their contents, particularly the likelihood that members of Congress would criticize the State Department for "not paying attention to Agency warnings." CIA officials responded with a new draft, stripped of all references to Ansar al Sharia.

In an email a short time later, Nuland wrote that the changes did not "resolve all my issues or those of my building leadership." She did not specify whom she meant by State Department "building leadership." Ben Rhodes, a top Obama foreign policy and national security adviser, responded to the group, explaining that Nuland had raised valid concerns and advising that the issues would be resolved at a meeting of the National Security Council's Deputies Committee the following morning.

As Charles Krauthammer noted, Rhodes had written in an email he wanted the revisions to reflect all the "equities" of the various departments involved in the Benghazi story -- not reflect the truth but the "equities" (a Washington euphemism for reputations). Truth ended up on the cutting room floor.

This report was backed up by other journalists.

As Kevin Robillard wrote at Politico,"Terror References removed from Benghazi talking points":

Nuland was backed up by Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes.

"We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don't want to undermine the FBI investigation," Rhodes wrote. "We thus will work through the talking points tomorrow morning at the Deputies Committee meeting."

After the meeting Rhodes mentioned, all references to Al Qaeda were deleted.

Hayes outlines what happened next:

Mike Morell, deputy director of the CIA, agreed to work with Jake Sullivan and Rhodes to edit the talking points. At the time, Sullivan was deputy chief of staff to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the State Department's director of policy planning; he is now the top national security adviser to Vice President Joe Biden.

It is highly doubtful that Morell, the deputy director of the CIA, a career official (not an Obama appointee), found this work comfortable or rewarding.

After all, he was being "asked" to distort the CIA's original report -- to eliminate references to Islamic terrorism, to delete warnings of an organized attack to come, to shield the Obama administration and cover-up the Benghazi disaster, a problem that would have plagued Barack Obama in the run-up to the election.

Then CIA-director David Petraeus was reportedly appalled at the revisions forced upon them by Team Obama (recall the constant references during the Bush era about the "politicizing of intelligence"?). He was particularly frustrated over the deleted references to terrorism.




DaddySatyr -> RE: Ben Ghazi.. the scandal continues (4/29/2014 11:24:59 PM)

"What does it matter, now?"







Screen captures still RULE! Ya feel me?




DaNewAgeViking -> RE: Ben Ghazi.. the scandal continues (4/30/2014 12:03:37 AM)

It matters to him since it's a safety valve to vent off his foaming hatred of all things not uber-right wing.
[sm=binky.gif]




SadistDave -> RE: Ben Ghazi.. the scandal continues (4/30/2014 1:34:12 AM)

If this had happened under a Republican President, the libs here would be apoplectic and foaming at the mouth to get rid of the administration. However, some folks feel the need to defend their uber-liberalism by giving this administration a pass simply because the President is a left-of-Lenin Democrat.

-SD-




DaddySatyr -> RE: Ben Ghazi.. the scandal continues (4/30/2014 1:51:23 AM)

Sorry. I was just (apparently mis-)quoting a very, caring compassionate dimocrap.







Screen captures still RULE! Ya feel me?




Musicmystery -> RE: Ben Ghazi.. the scandal continues (4/30/2014 5:02:19 AM)

Of course it continues. Since the Pubs have no solutions, they can only scream at shit.




mnottertail -> RE: Ben Ghazi.. the scandal continues (4/30/2014 6:04:06 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SadistDave

If this had happened under a Republican President, the libs here would be apoplectic and foaming at the mouth to get rid of the administration. However, some folks feel the need to defend their uber-liberalism by giving this administration a pass simply because the President is a left-of-Lenin Democrat.

-SD-


Please review the history of St. Wrinklemeat and the massacres at American Embassies under his watch. I think the nutsackers are shitting their pants in hallucinations ignoring facts as is the usual case.




thompsonx -> RE: Ben Ghazi.. the scandal continues (4/30/2014 6:53:09 AM)

Flat. out. lie.

Do you find it offensive when politicians lie or just when demopub politicians lie?




joether -> RE: Ben Ghazi.. the scandal continues (4/30/2014 7:00:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SadistDave
If this had happened under a Republican President, the libs here would be apoplectic and foaming at the mouth to get rid of the administration. However, some folks feel the need to defend their uber-liberalism by giving this administration a pass simply because the President is a left-of-Lenin Democrat.


How about those 13 Benghazi's during the Bush Administration?

You know, the thirteen that less than 10% of conservatives and libertarians complained about?

The ones that the grand majority of conservative media sources ignored and hid?

The thirteen times it took place, but no real out cry by Republicans or the Tea Party that 'the government is trying to hide something'?

Imagine if conservatives, libertarians, Republicans and Tea Party people were as vocal and animated on those thirteen episodes under the Bush Administration, as they were/are for the one under the Obama Administration...

.....imagine how much more credibility they would have.....





OwnerFiftyNine -> RE: Ben Ghazi.. the scandal continues (4/30/2014 7:39:23 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SadistDave

If this had happened under a Republican President, the libs here would be apoplectic and foaming at the mouth to get rid of the administration. However, some folks feel the need to defend their uber-liberalism by giving this administration a pass simply because the President is a left-of-Lenin Democrat.

-SD-



Bull shit......

We lost 241 Americans in Beirut and shrub got 4400 Americans killed through fraud and we haven`t spent a dollar investigating why st ronnie ordered our brave Marines unload their M-16s.......


How many millions have you cowards spent actually vindicating our President.......... and our next President?


Boo fucking hoo.....


Don`t you think putting 4400 Americans in body bags is enough for us to put up with?


Do you really think normal folks are going to let you cowards make pretend like that never happened, too?









OwnerFiftyNine -> RE: Ben Ghazi.. the scandal continues (4/30/2014 7:51:49 AM)

We should also keep in mind........


We still have yet to be told what wrongdoing was done.


Like with Bridgegate.......We don`t have a verdict but we know what wrongdoing was done.....


The cowards are claiming wrongdoing yet they can`t even explain what that wronging is.






RacerJim -> RE: Ben Ghazi.. the scandal continues (4/30/2014 8:31:20 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

"What does it matter, now?"







Screen captures still RULE! Ya feel me?

First off, it mattered on 9/11/2011 because then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton not only had previously refused to increase security at our facilities in Benghazi but actually decreased them...both in support of Obama's 2012 campaign proclamations "GM is alive and Bin Laden is dead" and "Al Queda (sp?) is on the run".

Secondly, it mattered during the House's investigation of Benghazi because it proves the White House did not comply with the House's document requests.

Thirdly, it matters now because Hillary Clinton is the presumptive Democratic Party nominee for POTUS in 2016 and has been a co-conspirator in the White House's cover-up of Benghazi.




mnottertail -> RE: Ben Ghazi.. the scandal continues (4/30/2014 8:36:00 AM)

I thought it all mattered because the convict Issa said it did, trying to cover up and derail the fact that the nutsackers slashed embassy security funding.




Musicmystery -> RE: Ben Ghazi.. the scandal continues (4/30/2014 9:08:34 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: RacerJim

Hillary Clinton is the presumptive Democratic Party nominee for POTUS in 2016

That's what everyone said about 2008.

It was . . . presumptuous.




thishereboi -> RE: Ben Ghazi.. the scandal continues (4/30/2014 9:14:40 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery


quote:

ORIGINAL: RacerJim

Hillary Clinton is the presumptive Democratic Party nominee for POTUS in 2016

That's what everyone said about 2008.

It was . . . presumptuous.



While I agree, I think he is right that they wouldn't be bringing this up if they were not afraid she might run. But never fear, if they find someone else to run, this will be dropped like it never happened and we will move on to new news. Hillary who?




thompsonx -> RE: Ben Ghazi.. the scandal continues (4/30/2014 9:14:41 AM)

it mattered on 9/11/2011 because then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton not only had previously refused to increase security at our facilities in Benghazi but actually decreased them...both in support of Obama's 2012 campaign proclamations "GM is alive and Bin Laden is dead" and "Al Queda (sp?) is on the run".

[bIs that controlled by the secretary of state or the congress?


Thirdly, it matters now because Hillary Clinton is the presumptive Democratic Party nominee for POTUS in 2016 and has been a co-conspirator in the White House's cover-up of Benghazi.

Wasnt ragun guilty of covering up iran contra?Wasnt nixon guilty of watergate?Wasn't kennedy guilty of trying to cover up the bay of pigs? Wasn't eisenhower guilty of trying to cover up garry powers? Wasnt truman guilty of covering up the reasons for droping the a bomb?Wasn't fdr guilty of covering up our fore knowledge of the attack on pearl harbor...please dont think it stops there they are all fucking liars all the way back to and including washington...so what is new? Politicians lie and people die. Why is so much ink spent snivling about a few overpaid bureaucrats getting snuffed? It is not like they didn't know the occupational hazards. Significantly less ink is spent snivling about dead soldiers...yeah well they are just soldiers a bureaucrats life is soooooo much more important.[8|]




Phydeaux -> RE: Ben Ghazi.. the scandal continues (4/30/2014 9:28:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: SadistDave
If this had happened under a Republican President, the libs here would be apoplectic and foaming at the mouth to get rid of the administration. However, some folks feel the need to defend their uber-liberalism by giving this administration a pass simply because the President is a left-of-Lenin Democrat.


How about those 13 Benghazi's during the Bush Administration?

You know, the thirteen that less than 10% of conservatives and libertarians complained about?

The ones that the grand majority of conservative media sources ignored and hid?

The thirteen times it took place, but no real out cry by Republicans or the Tea Party that 'the government is trying to hide something'?

Imagine if conservatives, libertarians, Republicans and Tea Party people were as vocal and animated on those thirteen episodes under the Bush Administration, as they were/are for the one under the Obama Administration...

.....imagine how much more credibility they would have.....




How about once, just once, you stop saying that corruption by dimocrats is ok because the republicans are worse?





Phydeaux -> RE: Ben Ghazi.. the scandal continues (4/30/2014 9:30:53 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

Why is so much ink spent snivling about a few overpaid bureaucrats getting snuffed? It is not like they didn't know the occupational hazards.



Ah. Compassionate dims at their finest.




mnottertail -> RE: Ben Ghazi.. the scandal continues (4/30/2014 9:33:23 AM)

He is only stating the facts.




RacerJim -> RE: Ben Ghazi.. the scandal continues (4/30/2014 10:41:33 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

I thought it all mattered because the convict Issa said it did, trying to cover up and derail the fact that the nutsackers slashed embassy security funding.

This Washington Post article proves you wrong.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/barbara-boxers-claim-that-gop-budgets-hampered-benghazi-security/2013/05/15/d1e295cc-bdb0-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_blog.html




Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.078125