• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Issa's Benghazi narrative falling apart

usatoday yesterday:

Benghazi emails released by the White House unleash flood of questions

Dozens of e-mails released by the White House reveal that Obama administration officials were behind the crafting of a false narrative about the attack in Benghazi, Libya. The communications raise questions about who called the shots and why, say an analyst and a lawmaker involved in the investigation.

According to the documents, officials at the State Department, CIA and White House national security staff heavily revised a CIA memo to remove all references to Islamist extremists known to have participated in the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya.

Among the unknowns:

Why were the revisions made?

Why did Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton testify before Congress that the edits were a product of the intelligence community when State officials had made many of the requests for alterations?

Why did the White House say it made no substantive edits when the e-mails show officials there helped lead the process for changes?

Where did the story come from that the attack grew from a protest against an anti-Islam video? The video was mentioned once in 100 pages of e-mails, but it was a central theme of Obama's and Clinton's description of the event.

The e-mails from Sept. 14-15 show that the State Department was "the key driving force for the revisions," says Thomas Joscelyn, an analyst with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracy in Washington.

The White House has since acknowledged what the CIA stated from the beginning: The Benghazi attack was a planned terrorist attack.

Chaffetz says many more documents need to be released to explain why the truth didn't come out right away.

Major revisions to the CIA memo were requested by Victoria Nuland, then-spokeswoman for the State Department, who said changes were needed to "resolve all my issues or those of my building leadership." The e-mails do not state what leaders she referred to.

Though White House spokesman Jay Carney has insisted the White House made almost no changes to the original memo, the e-mails show that Tommy Vietor, then-spokesman for the White House's national security adviser, wanted State Department concerns about the memo to be addressed.

Members of Congress "all think it was premeditated based on inaccurate assumptions or briefings. ... We need to brief members/press and correct the record,"Vietor wrote in an e-mail Sept. 14.

Nuland said in e-mails that the CIA memo's references to previous terrorist activity near the consulate and in the region could be construed by Congress as evidence that the State Department ignored the safety of its staff in Benghazi.

The CIA retorted in the e-mails that the FBI "did not have major concerns" with the memo's findings. Evidence for its conclusions that the attack was preplanned by an al-Qaeda-linked terrorist group came from the claims of terror group Ansar al-Sharia and witness accounts forwarded by the CIA station chief in Tripoli.

Chaffetz said one e-mail, which was sent the day after the attack by Beth Jones, State's acting assistant secretary for Near Eastern Affairs, to several high ranking State Department officials, described how she corrected the Libyan ambassador to the United States for suggesting the Benghazi attack may have been perpetrated by loyalists to ousted Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi.

Jones wrote to her supervisors, Chaffetz says, that the al-Qaeda-linked Libyan group Ansar al-Sharia was behind the attack.
Click to expand...

usatoday, huh?

i couldn't have written it better myself

worry
 
Bronson said:
Obama and Hillary lied to the faces of the grieving families and told them their loved ones died because of a Youtube video

Liberals don't have a problem with that

Obama nowhere to be found for 8 hours while Americans fought for their lives and were murdered by terrorists

Liberals don't have a problem with that

Obama lied to the American People when he blamed a youtube video

Liberals don't have a problem with that

The Obama Administration spent 70K running ads in pakistan blaming the youtube video

Liberals don't have a problem with that

The guy (scapegoat) who made the 10 min youtube video is still rotting in jail

Liberals don't have a problem with that

Anyone who has tried to reveal the truth has been harassed and intimidated by the Obama Administration

Liberals don't have a problem with that

A stand down order was given twice when American lives were in danger

Liberals don't have a problem with that

I could go on and on but why bother. Clearly the Left cares more about Obama than murdered Americans and the truth.
Click to expand...

In case you missed it they just found out that none of that happened and it was all a republican lie.

Your selective blindness is awesome.
 
tererun said:
In case you missed it they just found out that none of that happened and it was all a republican lie.

Your selective blindness is awesome.
Click to expand...


What the....? :lamo Are you kidding here? Good God, that has got to be the funniest thing I think I have ever read here at DP....:lamo

Credibility of the Obama cabal is shot.....
 
mtm1963 said:
rice knowingly lied on the talk shows.

we are looking for the person(s) who directed that lie and their motivations.
Click to expand...

I think we are being led on a wild goose chase at this point....Not only do we need to know who ordered "stand down", but what were they in Benghazi for that day in the first place? Can anyone say arms running? And better yet, who's bird brained idea was it to "Normalize" security for that region of Libya?
 
j-mac said:
I think we are being led on a wild goose chase at this point....Not only do we need to know who ordered "stand down", but what were they in Benghazi for that day in the first place? Can anyone say arms running? And better yet, who's bird brained idea was it to "Normalize" security for that region of Libya?
Click to expand...

misdirection is one of the WH's best tactics when it comes to dealing with situations that put a bad light on them.
 
the defense as of today is so thin, one tremor and the whole structure collapses

as in, why would ben rhodes, obama's counterterrorism adviser and brother of cbs new president david, send an email to jake tapper, formerly abc, now cnn, essentially trying to show that the entire summaries of the talking-points email chain released by evil darrell issa, which was used by jonathan karl and everyone else to begin their analyses, was somehow twisted outta context or even outright deception

The upshot here is that while ABC reporter Jon Karl's account of the email suggests Rhodes had voiced concern over the State Dept.'s suggested edits to the talking points, the full email obtained by Tapper suggests he did not single out the State Dept. and merely wanted to address the concerns of everyone involved in the editing process.

But ABC News says the new Rhodes email is not necessarily at odds with its initial report, which -- as Karl stated at the time -- was based on "summaries" of White House and State Department emails. (The piece was certainly lacking for clarity; see Update below.)

"Assuming the email reported by CNN is accurate, it is consistent with the summary quoted by Jon Karl," Jeffrey Schneider, the senior vice president and spokesman for ABC News, told POLITICO.

The new email doesn't change the fact that the White House and State Dept. were involved in the revision process, nor that the State Dept. voiced specific concerns about references to terror. Indeed, it doesn't even prove that Rhodes wasn't concerned about the State Dept.'s concerns about "terror."

So what's going on here? Tapper's "U.S. government source" is likely drawing attention to the discrepancy between Karl's summary of the email and the actual content of the email in order to discredit ABC's report and Karl's sources. Indeed, on Tuesday afternoon the White House accused congressional Republicans of fabricating the emails cited in Karl's report.

One thing you'll learn if you study political communications: Nothing seems to work so well as using one small error in a report to discredit the entire report. CNN's "U.S. government source" must be overjoyed that Tapper used the word "inaccurate" four times** when referring to a report that is, for the most part, accurate.

CNN has since removed three of the four uses of the word "inaccurate" from its report.
Click to expand...

The Benghazi revisions, revisited - POLITICO.com

jonathan karl offers himself a rather lengthy account of standing by his story, open the link and read it, calling in conclusion for this woebegone white house to come clean by releasing ALL the emails

karl's not alone:

Chuck Todd: "Attention White House, Release All The E-Mails" | RealClearPolitics

Video: Angus King: Release Benghazi emails - POLITICO.com

you look at all that objectively and you can come to no other conclusion than the defense, at least as of this morning, has got squat

why, why would it be, how could it be that the president of the declining states of amercia could have got himself so far into squat

oh well, what difference does it make, it was a long time ago, the ambassador knew what he was getting into, death is part of life

however, just wednesday the waylaid white house released 100 select pages of email chain, you'd think to bolster their tremulous house of cards---but that too badly backfired

newly released messages included:

""the white house cleared quickly but state had major concerns"

"serious concerns about arming members of congress'

'why do we want the hill fingering ansar al sharia"

"could be abused by members to beat the state dept for not paying attention to warnings"

"will come back to us at podium"

victoria nuland, foggy bottom's equivalent of jay carney, hillary clinton's press spokesperson (what do you think is her exact expertise): "after conversation with [name redacted] serious concerns"

nuland: changes so far "didn't resolve all my issues or those of my building leadership"

nuland referred to "offline communications"

"john brennan will have edits"

"talk to tommy, we can have edits"

"state dept had major reservations with much or most of the document, we revised the document with their concerns in mind"

The Benghazi Emails: Talking Points Changed at State Dept.'s Request - ABC News

USAToday: Benghazi emails unleash flood of new questions
 
Last edited:
Despite the centrality of the YouTube video to the administration’s public discussion of Benghazi, it goes virtually unmentioned in the nearly 100 pages of emails between the nation’s top intelligence and Obama administration officials as they reshaped the talking points provided by the CIA. The film trailer is included as part of a list on the first page of the documents and again at the very end, in the subject line about a meeting of high-ranking officials on Saturday morning: “SVTS [Secure Video Teleconferencing System] on Movie Protests/Violence.”

As the top U.S. officials discussed what to include in the talking points that would shape their case to the country on the attacks in Benghazi, the video was absent. Whose idea was it to make it the centerpiece? The Obama administration still has a lot of explaining to do.
Click to expand...

What About the Video? | The Weekly Standard

language about "spontaneous demonstrations" which turned out not to be true remained, while references to "islamic extremists with ties to al qaeda" subsequently proved accurate were removed

that's backwards

and the video, which became the centerpiece of the entire white house team's explanation (rice, carney, obama, hillary, biden) wasn't even discussed until that completely undocumented, black box of a saturday morning deputies meeting in the white house hosted by ben rhodes brother of the cbs president

who decided to promote the video?

and why?

whose narrative is falling apart, again?
 
tererun said:
In case you missed it they just found out that none of that happened and it was all a republican lie.

Your selective blindness is awesome.
Click to expand...

It all happened. Not my problem you refuse to accept reality.

This thread and now this push by The Left to counter Benghazi is laughably pathetic. No emails were edited. A summary was given that was consistent with the emails. Somehow this is a massive scandal that has liberals screeching like Harpies, but 4 murdered Americans (including an ambassador) whose deaths could have prevented and the FACT that their grieving families were lied to and misled is "nothing". Americans fighting to protect and save their own (against stand down orders) left to die without any help from the Obama Administration is "not a scandal" to the Obama cultists.

The real question is how do you sleep at night supporting and defending such corruption and dishonesty tererun? Just curious
 
tererun said:
In case you missed it they just found out that none of that happened and it was all a republican lie.

Your selective blindness is awesome.
Click to expand...

This has stopped being a conversation on politics and has become one of religion.

The Obamaists just want to continue believing, and no amount of facts can dissuade them..
 
As with repubLies and Oids
 
Bronson said:
It all happened. Not my problem you refuse to accept reality.

This thread and now this push by The Left to counter Benghazi is laughably pathetic. No emails were edited. A summary was given that was consistent with the emails. Somehow this is a massive scandal that has liberals screeching like Harpies, but 4 murdered Americans (including an ambassador) whose deaths could have prevented and the FACT that their grieving families were lied to and misled is "nothing". Americans fighting to protect and save their own (against stand down orders) left to die without any help from the Obama Administration is "not a scandal" to the Obama cultists.

The real question is how do you sleep at night supporting and defending such corruption and dishonesty tererun? Just curious
Click to expand...


Is Libya now safe? What is the overall picture? Many people are still dying in violnece in Libya. What is the Answer to end the violence?

What are the aims of those in Libya killing others? What was the message that the terrorists, who killed four Americans in Benghazi, were trying to give to the US? The West?

The Libyan government is supposed to protect embassies and consulates.

US ambassadors and State Deparment workers need to meet with Libyans to write and propose aid packages.

The US CIA needs secret sources to give accurate information on the violence in Libya. The Anti-West feelings in Libya is probably getting those who help the US CIA, in danger.

Secrecy is needed to effectively protect sources ion Libya. How can you have secrecy, if Congress is making all the E-mails public?

The more informatnion made public, the less protection for US sources in Libya. Obama should have just said this stuff should be secret, to protect the sources,

Who is keeping tack of the number of our sources that are getting targeted? How many Libyans are getting klled by Terrorists? What are the motivations for the varous groups of terrorsts in Libya?


"The post-Gaddafi transitional government based in Tripoli exerts scant authority over much of the country.

The latest violence comes days after the US and Britain withdrew some staff from their embassies in the Libyan capital, citing security concerns over a flare-up between armed groups and the authorities.

The fighters, mostly former rebels who helped topple Gaddafi, had surrounded the foreign and justice ministries to press for a vote in the National Assembly barring former officials of his regime from holding government jobs.

They lifted the siege on Sunday, ending a two-week standoff, days after the vote was passed by the General National Congress and a pledge by Ali Zeidan, the prime minister, to reshuffle the cabinet soon."
Deadly car bombing hits Libya's Benghazi - Africa - Al Jazeera English

Google: Libyan Deaths 2013

Google


What is the answer for Libya?






//
 
Last edited:
j-mac said:
I think we are being led on a wild goose chase at this point....Not only do we need to know who ordered "stand down", but what were they in Benghazi for that day in the first place? Can anyone say arms running? And better yet, who's bird brained idea was it to "Normalize" security for that region of Libya?
Click to expand...


So apparently the Terrorists who committted the attack on Americans in Benghazi were Right Wing Libyan Islamists, who are trying to score political points for thier cause, by blowing up Americans.


"In the early days of the revolution some of them claimed that fighting Qaddafi was un-Islamic and conveniently issued a fatwa demanding full obedience to the ruler. This is Libya’s extreme right. And, while much is still uncertain, Tuesday’s attack appears to have been their attempt to escalate a strategy they have employed ever since the Libyan revolution overthrew Colonel Qaddafi’s dictatorship. They see in these days, in which the new Libya and its young institutions are still fragile, an opportunity to grab power. They want to exploit the impatient resentments of young people in particular in order to disrupt progress and the development of democratic institutions.

Even though they appear to be well funded from abroad and capable of ruthless acts of violence against Libyans and foreigners, these groups have so far failed to gain widespread support. In fact, the opposite: their actions have alienated most Libyans."


What Was Really Behind the Consulate Attack in Libya? : The New Yorker



Google: reasons for benghazi attack

Google









//
 
radioman said:
-----------
Well....I must defend my political opponent, Jack Hays, on this one.
We're all just opinionating here.
The majority of links are from partisan sites.
One can always find some sort of link--credible, or not-- to support an opinion.
If sweet, naïve Jack wants to believe Issa is a fact-finding crusader for the truth....so be it.
Click to expand...

Very true. You may be vulnerable if you post links because you tie yourself to that link's credibility. But if you state your opinion as fact and never support it... that is no argument. There are people on forums that often take the tact of playing the never-ending refutor. Then just say "it can't be done" or "no it isn't" which is the lazy path. And one where you don't need links. He's chosen that path. And when he tries to take a stance he NEVER backs it up. Then of course he claims to be on level with Aristotle. lol

Even the old philosophers needed history to back them up. He has none of these.
 
Grant said:
‘Taking Revisionist History Too Far’: Washington Post Fact-Checker Gives Obama ‘Four Pinocchios’ on Benghazi Claim | TheBlaze.com
Click to expand...

So Glenn Beck used his website theBlaze to say that the administration lied about calling Benghazi a act of terrorism. He called it an act of terror so this boils down to Glenn Beck, that WP guy and you whining about the differences between saying "Act of Terror" and "Act of Terrorism." Who gives a rats ass other than the after-birthers?
 
poweRob said:
Very true. You may be vulnerable if you post links because you tie yourself to that link's credibility. But if you state your opinion as fact and never support it... that is no argument. There are people on forums that often take the tact of playing the never-ending refutor. Then just say "it can't be done" or "no it isn't" which is the lazy path. And one where you don't need links. He's chosen that path. And when he tries to take a stance he NEVER backs it up. Then of course he claims to be on level with Aristotle. lol
Even the old philosophers needed history to back them up. He has none of these.
Click to expand...
----------------
Maybe Jack was comparing himself to Aristotle Onassis?
 
ABC’s Jonathan Karl regrets that he was caught lying about Benghazi

Karl’s story purported to “prove” that the White House had made partisan hay with the Benghazi talking points in those first few days after the deadly attack on our consultate in Libya. In fact, Karl’s story, we now know, was a lie, fabricated by congressional Republicans who are out to get President Obama, and aided by Karl having intentionally misled ABC’s audience in his reporting on the matter.​


You got nothing after-birthers... but keep fishing. Maybe eventually you'll trip across a stained blue dress or something.
 
radioman said:
----------------
Maybe Jack was comparing himself to Aristotle Onassis?
Click to expand...

perhaps... lol

With links I'll often search a story and try to find a link to Fox or some conservative source. That way they are backed into a corner where they can't just dismiss the source so easily.
 
poweRob said:
ABC’s Jonathan Karl regrets that he was caught lying about Benghazi

Karl’s story purported to “prove” that the White House had made partisan hay with the Benghazi talking points in those first few days after the deadly attack on our consultate in Libya. In fact, Karl’s story, we now know, was a lie, fabricated by congressional Republicans who are out to get President Obama, and aided by Karl having intentionally misled ABC’s audience in his reporting on the matter.​


You got nothing after-birthers... but keep fishing. Maybe eventually you'll trip across a stained blue dress or something.
Click to expand...

ON THE SAME PAGE no less:

poweRob said:
Very true. You may be vulnerable if you post links because you tie yourself to that link's credibility.
Click to expand...

you used a blog site...?

vulnerable indeed...:lamo
 
poweRob said:
ABC’s Jonathan Karl regrets that he was caught lying about Benghazi

Karl’s story purported to “prove” that the White House had made partisan hay with the Benghazi talking points in those first few days after the deadly attack on our consultate in Libya. In fact, Karl’s story, we now know, was a lie, fabricated by congressional Republicans who are out to get President Obama, and aided by Karl having intentionally misled ABC’s audience in his reporting on the matter.​


You got nothing after-birthers... but keep fishing. Maybe eventually you'll trip across a stained blue dress or something.
Click to expand...

But really consider (from another thread):

Dickieboy said:
... Since Jay Carney stated that congressmen could view and take notes but not copy or photograph the emails:

Would 'taking notes' on an email verbatim constitute 'copy' (which was forbidden)?

If yes, did the GOP have any other choice but paraphrase the emails? And having 'paraphrased' did they have any other choice but furnish this to Karl? Further, IF they had released the email's text verbatim wouldn't they be under scrutiny for violating there 'no copy rule'?

If no, then why didn't the WH just release the emails during the Brenan confirmation? I mean there out now what's the difference between then and now?
Click to expand...

reference:
Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 05/10/2013 | The White House
Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 05/10/2013-
Q Since you bring it up, why were those emails provided in a read-only fashion?
MR. CARNEY: It is, I think, a standard procedure for administrations of both parties, going back decades, that internal deliberations are generally protected -- is generally protected information that is not something that is regularly shared with Congress, and then that’s -- to allow for a deliberative process in the executive branch. In this case, to answer just these concerns that members of Congress had, particularly Republican members of Congress, that step was taken and provided. And they were able to review all of these emails, which they have, of course, now leaked to reporters, but they were able to review all of these emails for as long as they wanted, take extensive notes if they chose to.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom