• 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!

Benghazi emails suggest White House aide involved in prepping Rice for ‘video [W:212]

Re: Benghazi emails suggest White House aide involved in prepping Rice for ‘video’ ex

The CIA did launch a response that failed. They were in charge there. How many times will you keep ignoring the facts?

New Detailed Account of Benghazi Attack Notes CIA’s Quick Response - ABC News



Heya IM......from your one source by McClatchy. Why is it you also keep ignoring the facts from your very own Articles?

Any increase in U.S. military force would have required State Department approval. It’s unknown if Stevens might have passed along Ham’s offer to the State Department and been turned down, or whether he believed that the security team Ham offered would not provide the kind of security he needed.....snip~

CAIRO: Ambassador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security, U.S. officials say | Middle East | McClatchy DC


Next!
 
Last edited:
Re: Benghazi emails suggest White House aide involved in prepping Rice for ‘video’ ex

Heya IM......from your one source by McClatchy. Why is it you also keep ignoring the facts from your very own Articles?

Any increase in U.S. military force would have required State Department approval. It’s unknown if Stevens might have passed along Ham’s offer to the State Department and been turned down, or whether he believed that the security team Ham offered would not provide the kind of security he needed.....snip~

CAIRO: Ambassador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security, U.S. officials say | Middle East | McClatchy DC


Next!

The CIA was providing security and that may well have been the reason for Stevens to decide he didn't need extra. The second time he was asked in person and said no thanks again. Why were they asking him if the States Dept. made the decision?
Aren't you the least bit curious about why the CIA and the Ambassador stayed in Benghazi when the British and Germans left because of security concerns? What was so important that they would risk Stevens life for it? There is something fishy about Benghazi and it is the CIA's involvement. Petreus was supposedly in charge but it turned out he was busy with a soap opera of his own.
 
Re: Benghazi emails suggest White House aide involved in prepping Rice for ‘video’ ex

The CIA was providing security and that may well have been the reason for Stevens to decide he didn't need extra. The second time he was asked in person and said no thanks again. Why were they asking him if the States Dept. made the decision?
Aren't you the least bit curious about why the CIA and the Ambassador stayed in Benghazi when the British and Germans left because of security concerns? What was so important that they would risk Stevens life for it? There is something fishy about Benghazi and it is the CIA's involvement. Petreus was supposedly in charge but it turned out he was busy with a soap opera of his own.

Yeah, I know but that was a one time convo with Ham and Stevens on the 16th of Aug. He had already put in requests prior to that and even Nordstrom requested security.

Have to head into work. For a couple hrs. I'll re-round when I get back IM.

Also, that articles of yours will be good, concerning Ham.....once things fall back to Ham and his testimony. Appreciate you getting something up.
 
Re: Benghazi emails suggest White House aide involved in prepping Rice for ‘video [W:

I'd like to point out that the entire focus of the conservative faux-rage has been focused on Obama and Hillary and none of it on what we did wrong and how we can fix it in the future. None. The lives of those killed in Benghazi mean nothing; they're just political pawns to be paraded about.. Look! Obama is a failure! See the dead bodies! It's completely disgusting.

Well, it would seem 'what went wrong', at its base, is that the president and sec of state were told certain information as to the cause of the assault. They peddled this story for days and weeks (the president repeated it at the United Nations, even though it was a sketchy story), and is completely discredited now. It seems now that the story originated for POLITICAL reasons-- and the released emails tend to support such a claim.

So a problem would be that the president was manipulated by his staff. Or he knowingly went along with the nonsense. Or he is clueless as to what goes on in his own office.
Its a problem, a president seems to lack any curiosity in fixing it.

Another problem is that the sec of state has sworn under oath that it doesn't matter happened.

The House formed a joint committee to investigate these problems.
 
Re: Benghazi emails suggest White House aide involved in prepping Rice for ‘video’ ex

The CIA was providing security and that may well have been the reason for Stevens to decide he didn't need extra. The second time he was asked in person and said no thanks again. Why were they asking him if the States Dept. made the decision?
Aren't you the least bit curious about why the CIA and the Ambassador stayed in Benghazi when the British and Germans left because of security concerns? What was so important that they would risk Stevens life for it? There is something fishy about Benghazi and it is the CIA's involvement. Petreus was supposedly in charge but it turned out he was busy with a soap opera of his own.

CIA never has security responsibility for an Ambassador or for an Embassy or Consulate. Never.:peace
 
Re: Benghazi emails suggest White House aide involved in prepping Rice for ‘video’ ex

This does bring up a few points...

1. This happened right before Obama's second election: Was it purposely thrown under the rug to not hinder it?

2. Hilary was Security of State at the time: Will this effect her election when she runs for Pres?

3. The fact that other countries withdrew Embassy members: Seeing how CIA was involved, could it perhaps be an assassination hid behind the turmoil and only blamed on riots?
 
Re: Benghazi emails suggest White House aide involved in prepping Rice for ‘video’ ex

This does bring up a few points...

1. This happened right before Obama's second election: Was it purposely thrown under the rug to not hinder it?

2. Hilary was Security of State at the time: Will this effect her election when she runs for Pres?

3. The fact that other countries withdrew Embassy members: Seeing how CIA was involved, could it perhaps be an assassination hid behind the turmoil and only blamed on riots?

1. Yes

2. Yes

3. A possibility sure, but more likely it was a terror attack called for weeks earlier by Al Zwarhiri (sic) on the 9/11 anniversary to show that AQ was NOT on the run, NOT being beaten like Obama claimed, and in fact will use 9/11 for decades to come to strike....

And when you have a President that didn't even take his PDB's the week before the attack in Benghazi, I find it stunning that he was elected again.
 
Re: Benghazi emails suggest White House aide involved in prepping Rice for ‘video’ ex

CIA never has security responsibility for an Ambassador or for an Embassy or Consulate. Never.:peace

Then what were they doing providing it for Ambassador Stevens?
 
Re: Benghazi emails suggest White House aide involved in prepping Rice for ‘video’ ex

HotAir — Politics, Culture, Media, Breaking News from a conservative viewpoint: Benghazi whistleblower: Don’t even think about blaming Stevens

Benghazi whistleblower: Don’t even think about blaming Stevens

After the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence reported that the attack on Benghazi was “preventable” — surely one of the least surprising conclusions one could have foreseen from a serious review of the data — the rush was on to take responsibility pass the buck. Some of that effort involved casting murdered Ambassador Chris Stevens as partly to blame for not being clearer about security needs in Libya and especially Benghazi, where terrorist attacks had escalated enough in both intensity and frequency to drive other Western countries out of the area, as well as the Red Cross. Don’t try that line out on Gregory Hicks, the State Department veteran and Benghazi whistleblower, who takes to the Wall Street Journal today to rebut that response:

Last week the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence issued its report on the Sept. 11, 2012, terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya. The report concluded that the attack, which resulted in the murder of four Americans, was “preventable.” Some have been suggesting that the blame for this tragedy lies at least partly with Ambassador Chris Stevens, who was killed in the attack. This is untrue: The blame lies entirely with Washington.

At issue are two offers from AFRICOM commander General Carter Ham for additional security in Libya that Stevens declined. Defenders of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have pointed to those responses to say that Stevens’ decisions pointed out how unclear the security situation was even to those on the ground. That’s nonsense, Hicks responds. Stevens had no choice but to reject those offers because of decisions made by the Obama administration about the nature of the mission — and takes aim specifically at Patrick Kennedy and Leon Panetta.

Stevens’ request for more security was based on the detachment having State Department aegis, in order to retain diplomatic immunity for the men. The Obama administration wanted to change their mission from diplomatic security to training Libyan militias, which would put them in the DoD and outside of the cover of diplomatic immunity. Kennedy refused to rescind the transfer of the forces to Defense, and that meant big trouble:

However, on July 13, State Department Undersecretary Patrick Kennedy refused the Defense Department offer and thus Chris’s July 9 request. His rationale was that Libyan guards would be hired to take over this responsibility. Because of Mr. Kennedy’s refusal, Chris had to use diplomatic language at the video conference, such as expressing “reservations” about the transfer of authority. …

Transferring authority would immediately strip the special forces team of its diplomatic immunity. Moreover, the U.S. had no status of forces agreement with Libya. He explained to Rear Adm. Charles J. Leidig that if a member of the special forces team used weapons to protect U.S. facilities, personnel or themselves, he would be subject to Libyan law. The law would be administered by judges appointed to the bench by Moammar Gadhafi or, worse, tribal judges. …

Chris understood the importance of the special forces team to the security of our embassy personnel. He believed that by explaining his concerns, the Defense Department would postpone the decision so he could have time to work with the Libyan government and get diplomatic immunity for the special forces.

According to the National Defense Authorization Act, the Defense Department needed Chris’s concurrence to change the special forces mission. But soon after the Aug. 1 meeting, and as a complete surprise to us at the embassy, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta signed the order without Chris’s concurrence.

Stevens ended up dying because State and the White House thought it was more important to train Libyan militias than to provide effective security cover for its consulate in Benghazi. Chew on that one for a while. And while that percolates a bit, remember that the so-called Accountability Review Board’s co-chair Thomas Pickering scoffed at the notion that his panel needed to depose Patrick Kennedy at all.

Earlier today, I pointed out that this was the one-year anniversary of the one and only time that Hillary Clinton got pressed for accountability for the debacle, and her now-infamous reply, “What difference at this point does it make?” Instapundit was kind enough to link to that, but Citizens United has a new video out marking the event:
 
Re: Benghazi emails suggest White House aide involved in prepping Rice for ‘video [W:

So for you the fact that Obama lies whenever his mouth is open is not a problem?

I'm beginning to think he likes it for some reason.

My point on this part of this issue is in fact what sort of accountability will we have if presidents and the executive branch can spew forth whatever they want for any political purposes, expediency, convenience? With no accountability what so ever? I don't think that this precedence bodes well for the future.
 
Re: Benghazi emails suggest White House aide involved in prepping Rice for ‘video [W:

I'm beginning to think he likes it for some reason.

My point on this part of this issue is in fact what sort of accountability will we have if presidents and the executive branch can spew forth whatever they want for any political purposes, expediency, convenience? With no accountability what so ever? I don't think that this precedence bodes well for the future.

As some may learn too late. Are we the only country in the world that allows this to continue? Does giving the Oath of Office no longer have any meaning, except for ceremonial purposes? Interesting...

Greetings, Erik. :2wave:
 
Re: Benghazi emails suggest White House aide involved in prepping Rice for ‘video [W:

As some may learn too late. Are we the only country in the world that allows this to continue? Does giving the Oath of Office no longer have any meaning, except for ceremonial purposes? Interesting...

Greetings, Erik. :2wave:

Seems to be so. A significant threat to the long term stability and honesty of politics in this nation. Such a shame. Politicians lying without any shame.

Greetings Polgara :2wave:
 
Re: Benghazi emails suggest White House aide involved in prepping Rice for ‘video’ ex

Military intelligence official: 'We should have tried' to help Americans during Benghazi attack | Fox News

A top military intelligence official in Africa at the time of the Benghazi attacks testified Thursday that U.S. personnel "should have tried" to help Americans under fire on Sept. 11, 2012, in an unprecedented public statement from a leading military officer.

Retired Brig. Gen. Robert Lovell, who at the time of the attacks was the intelligence director at AFRICOM, questioned the merits of the ongoing debate over whether U.S. military forces could have responded in time. Leading Pentagon and other military officials previously have argued that additional U.S. assets were not deployed to assist Americans under attack that night because they weren't close enough.


"The point is we should have tried," Lovell told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, in his opening statement. "As another saying goes -- always move to the sound of the guns."

He later said the military "could have made a response of some sort." Lovell made clear repeatedly that the military was waiting for clearance from the State Department to intervene in Benghazi.

Lovell also sharply countered claims that the intelligence community and military initially thought this was a protest over an anti-Islam video gone awry. He said U.S. officials knew this was a "hostile action" from the outset, even though they didn't know how long the attack would last.

"This was no demonstration gone terribly awry," Lovell said. "The facts led to the conclusion of a terrorist attack."

Under questioning, he also said the Internet video was "briefly discussed" on the ground but "dismissed" as a motive shortly afterward. He said officials soon concluded that Islamic militant group Ansar al-Sharia was involved.

The testimony is significant, as it marks the latest effort to lift the curtain behind what happened during the night of the attack and the ensuing days. In a cryptic statement, Lovell cited the need for a "full forthcoming to the American people."

"I felt it was my duty to come forward," he said. "The circumstances of what occurred there in Benghazi that day need to be known."

The testimony comes two days after new emails were obtained and released by a watchdog group showing a top White House aide was involved in preparing then-U.N. ambassador Susan Rice for her controversial Sunday show appearances, where she pushed the narrative that protests over an Internet video were to blame.

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., at the start of the hearing, ripped the administration over those emails, and accused it of deliberately hiding the documents after an earlier congressional subpoena.

"It is disturbing and perhaps criminal ... that documents like these were hidden by the Obama administration from Congress and the public alike," Issa said. He claimed the withholding of these documents is the worst transparency violation since at least the Nixon administration.

One email showed notes from White House adviser Ben Rhodes regarding a "prep call" with Rice; the notes discussed the Internet video as the cause. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney claimed Wednesday that the "prep call" was only in reference to demonstrations elsewhere in the Middle East and Africa, and not Benghazi.
Sorry, but the former Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, disagrees withe the General.

 
Re: Benghazi emails suggest White House aide involved in prepping Rice for ‘video’ ex

Sorry, but the former Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, disagrees withe the General.

Robert Gates like Leon Panetta are yes men. It's how they survived a long career in the government.

Obama only surrounds himself with yes men. That's why everything is so ****ed up today.
 
Re: Benghazi emails suggest White House aide involved in prepping Rice for ‘video [W:

Seems to be so. A significant threat to the long term stability and honesty of politics in this nation. Such a shame. Politicians lying without any shame.

Greetings Polgara :2wave:

Politicians have probably always lied, or hidden the truth if it could be a problem - like Roosevelt's paralytic illness which required him to use a wheelchair - something the public never knew until after he died, probably for good reason if you consider international relations. What we have today is not the same thing, IMO. Today, politicians from the top down lie to get elected, lie while in office, and lie when they are caught lying. Isn't this a good way to determine why we are where we are when it's accepted as normal behavior? :thumbdown:
 
Re: Benghazi emails suggest White House aide involved in prepping Rice for ‘video’ ex

Four dead Americans might be a dead horse to a left winger like you, Obama and Hillary but not to most Americans.
On October 22, 1983, 220 Marines, 18 Sailors, and 3 Soldiers were killed in a truck bomb attack on a multinational force in Beirut, Lebanon. How angry were you at the Commander and Chief when you found out that the guards had no ammunition in their guns?
 
Re: Benghazi emails suggest White House aide involved in prepping Rice for ‘video [W:

I'm beginning to think he likes it for some reason.

My point on this part of this issue is in fact what sort of accountability will we have if presidents and the executive branch can spew forth whatever they want for any political purposes, expediency, convenience? With no accountability what so ever? I don't think that this precedence bodes well for the future.
Just look at what President Bush did in the autumn on 2002 when he and his administration set forth a campaign to scare the American people about Iraq's WMD so it would make it politically unpopular for Democrats to vote against his resolution to attack Iraq. That was indeed a very costly misadventure. Please save all the quotes and misquotes from Democrats. They wanted the wanted the UN inspectors to complete there job in Iraq.

Study: Iraq War Cost 190K Lives, $2.2 Trillion | Military.com
 
Re: Benghazi emails suggest White House aide involved in prepping Rice for ‘video’ ex

Then what were they doing providing it for Ambassador Stevens?

They were not. Their response was an ad hoc reaction to an emergency. They at no time were given responsibility for his security.:peace
 
Re: Benghazi emails suggest White House aide involved in prepping Rice for ‘video [W:

Just look at what President Bush did in the autumn on 2002 when he and his administration set forth a campaign to scare the American people about Iraq's WMD so it would make it politically unpopular for Democrats to vote against his resolution to attack Iraq. That was indeed a very costly misadventure. Please save all the quotes and misquotes from Democrats. They wanted the wanted the UN inspectors to complete there job in Iraq.

Study: Iraq War Cost 190K Lives, $2.2 Trillion | Military.com
And here we go again. Not only Bush but Bush and Iraq! Brought up again by one of the daily, sometimes hourly source of Bushisms aside from Boo Radley. Because there really is no subject a bucket of Bush references sprinkled with Iraq sauce that does not require those ingredients. Some (pardon the pun) seem to *think*.:lol:
 
Re: Benghazi emails suggest White House aide involved in prepping Rice for ‘video’ ex

Robert Gates like Leon Panetta are yes men. It's how they survived a long career in the government.

Obama only surrounds himself with yes men. That's why everything is so ****ed up today.

Gates said it after he stepped down from his position as Secretary of Defense, so that is completely wrong.

And today the situation is much better than it was when Obama became POTUS.
 
Re: Benghazi emails suggest White House aide involved in prepping Rice for ‘video’ ex

They were not. Their response was an ad hoc reaction to an emergency. They at no time were given responsibility for his security.:peace

LOL It was the CIA's failure to uncover the plot, it was their "operation" that was keeping that consulate open when other countries had withdraw to Tripoli and their advice that caused Stevens to refuse extra security TWICE. The were heavily involved in Benghazi and it was not "ad hoc". You are just discounting it because it doesn't incriminate the Whitehouse just like the House investigation/witch hunt. That's also why we will never know the real story.
 
Re: Benghazi emails suggest White House aide involved in prepping Rice for ‘video’ ex

I worked for our govt at that time. I don't recall being lied too bout who did it, why, and I think some folks were fired or at least demoted due to the failures to protect our troops.

His many people were fired by this regime? How many lies told for weeks after? You brought this up, own it, and recognize the difference between then and now.


On October 22, 1983, 220 Marines, 18 Sailors, and 3 Soldiers were killed in a truck bomb attack on a multinational force in Beirut, Lebanon. How angry were you at the Commander and Chief when you found out that the guards had no ammunition in their guns?
 
Re: Benghazi emails suggest White House aide involved in prepping Rice for ‘video’ ex

Completely wrong is your opine. Stepped down doesn't mean he isn't in line to back up Hilda as a VP, Sec Def, or some other spot. What a DNC joke point.


Gates said it after he stepped down from his position as Secretary of Defense, so that is completely wrong.

And today the situation is much better than it was when Obama became POTUS.
 
Re: Benghazi emails suggest White House aide involved in prepping Rice for ‘video’ ex

On October 22, 1983, 220 Marines, 18 Sailors, and 3 Soldiers were killed in a truck bomb attack on a multinational force in Beirut, Lebanon. How angry were you at the Commander and Chief when you found out that the guards had no ammunition in their guns?

That does matter to them, in fact I don't believe they care about the four who died in Benghazi, it's just a talking point them to place the blame on Hillary Clinton, who if she runs, would wipe the floor with any Gee Oh Pee candidate, and they know it.
 
Re: Benghazi emails suggest White House aide involved in prepping Rice for ‘video’ ex

I worked for our govt at that time. I don't recall being lied too bout who did it, why, and I think some folks were fired or at least demoted due to the failures to protect our troops.

His many people were fired by this regime? How many lies told for weeks after? You brought this up, own it, and recognize the difference between then and now.
How much did the President (Ronald Reagan) own up to the fact that those guards didn't have ammunition in their guns?
 
Back
Top Bottom