Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 42 of 42

Thread: Stevens Went To Benghazi So Clinton Could Announce A Permanent Post; ARB Omits

  1. #41

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 12:32 PM

    Re: Stevens Went To Benghazi So Clinton Could Announce A Permanent Post; ARB Omits

    those crazy wingnuts:

    mark mardell, editor of bbc's north american office

    There's new evidence, obtained by ABC, that the Obama administration did deliberately purge references to "terrorism" from accounts of the attack on the Benghazi diplomatic mission, which killed four people including the US ambassador to Libya.

    There's little doubt in my mind that this will haunt Hillary Clinton if she decides to run for president, unless she executes some pretty fancy footwork.

    State department spokesperson Victoria Nuland is directly implicated, and the fingerprints of senior White House aides Ben Rhodes and Jay Carney are there as well.

    In the interests of full disclosure I have to say I have not in the past been persuaded that allegations of a cover-up were a big deal. It seemed to me a partisan attack based on very little.

    I remember listening to reports from the BBC and others at the time that did suggest the attack in Benghazi was a spontaneous reaction to a rather puerile anti-Islamic video.

    I understand President Barack Obama's careful use of the word "terrorism" when it actually means something, rather than as a knee-jerk description of any violence by foreigners against Americans, often in order to justify a "war on terror".

    But the evidence is there in black and white, unless we doubt the documents obtained by ABC, which I don't.

    The new documents contain two rationales for the changes in language. The first is that it would prejudice the FBI investigation.

    Perhaps, but I am not at all persuaded.

    The other reason given, old-fashioned butt-guarding, is more credible.

    As Ms Nuland puts it, such a report "could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either?"

    However you read the motives, the state department and apparently the White House did get the CIA to change its story.

    This is now very serious, and I suspect heads will roll. The White House will be on the defensive for a while.
    BBC News - After Benghazi revelations, heads will roll

    oh, yes, on the defensive

    and unless someone in the chicago circle can come up with some game changing answers to at least a dozen serious questions before evil issa polishes his gavel...

    don't look to elijah cummings---he actually LIKES hicks and thompson and nordstrom

  2. #42

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 12:32 PM

    Re: Stevens Went To Benghazi So Clinton Could Announce A Permanent Post; ARB Omits

    ron fournier, former washington bureau chief, associated press, now editor of the elite national journal

    Scrubbing the Truth from Benghazi -

    “These changes don’t resolve all of my issues or those of my building’s leadership.” With that sentence, one in a series of emails and draft “talking points” leaked to Jonathan Karl of ABC News, the Obama administration was caught playing politics with Benghazi.

    Summaries of White House and State Department emails -- some of which were first published by Stephen F. Hayes of the Weekly Standard -- also contradict the White House version of events that led to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice misleading the public about the cause of the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. installation in Libya.

    It would be nave to expect any White House to ignore the political implications of a foreign policy crisis occurring two months before a presidential election. But there is a reason why no White House admits to finessing a tragedy: It's unseemly. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland injected politics into the U.S. response to Benghazi when she raised objections to draft “talking points” being prepared for Rice’s television appearances.

    The paragraph was deleted. The truth was scrubbed.

    Nuland still had concerns. “These changes don’t resolve all of my issues or those of my buildings (sic) leadership,” she wrote.

    An administration official familiar with Nuland's thinking said she was worried that the CIA was trying to exonerate itself at the expense of the State Department by suggesting that security warnings were ignored.

    But regardless of Nuland's motive, this is now clear: The Obama administration let political considerations cloud the public record. For far too long, the White House shied away from calling Benghazi a terrorist attack and stood behind Rice’s initial statement that it was inspired by protests over a crude anti-Islamic video.

    The White House has long maintained that the talking points were drafted almost exclusively by the CIA, a claim that gave cover to both President Obama and his potential successor, Clinton. “Those talking points originated from the intelligence community,” White House spokesman Jay Carney said in November, adding that the only editing by the White House or the State Department was to change the word "consulate" to "diplomatic facility." The emails prove him wrong.

    Significant edits to the talking points were discussed at the White House [italics fournier's] the day before Rice's appearance on five Sunday shows, said the official familiar with Nuland's thinking, who added that she did not attend the meeting.

    Throw Hillary under the bus? In a statement to ABC, Carney notably insulates the West Wing and not the State Department by saying “the only edits made by anyone here at the White House were stylistic and nonsubstantive.”

    And, with no apparent regard to hypocrisy, Carney criticized the GOP for attempting to “politicize the talking points.”

    Drip, drip, drip: There is almost certainly more to come. While Karl and Hayes did not disclose their sources, a hallmark of congressional investigations is to leak selected evidence to embarrass the sitting administration. It’s a safe bet that these emails, produced voluntarily for Congress by the State Department, were summarized and leaked by Republicans. The Obama White House might want to borrow a page from the scandal-ridden Clinton playbook: Release all Benghazi documents at a time and manner of their choosing, before the GOP does so.
    boehner yesterday:

    Boehner calls for White House to release Benghazi emails – CNN Political Ticker - Blogs

    all you have is your opinion which is no more value than a million other mouths

    and if you don't read the news---all of it---you really can't know what's going on, you can't compete with those who do

    you think you're smart enough to argue with people far more informed than you, and you're not

    indeed, because you're so woefully under-read, you're astonishingly stupid

    right wing crazies---the same day the american broadcasting corporation, abc, blows off the roof

    either way, party on

    be proud, represent

    seeya at the hearings, they're gonna go on forever

    aren't tinfoil hats funny?

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts