• 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

poweRob

USMC 1988-1996
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2011
Messages
82,955
Reaction score
56,875
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
All bluster thus far and now that independent investigators don't turn up the narrative that Issa wants to push, he hides them from public testimony.

Pickering, Mullen challenge Issa to let them testify in public

In a letter to Rep. Darrell Issa exclusively obtained by CNN, the co-chairmen behind an independent review of September's deadly attack in Benghazi, Libya, expressed irritation over the House Oversight Committee chairman's portrayal of their work and requested he call a public hearing at which they can testify.

"The public deserves to hear your questions and our answers," wrote former Ambassador Thomas Pickering and former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen, co-chairmen of the Accountability Review Board that was convened to investigate the September 11th attack.

The dispute between Issa and the co-chairmen came to a head after neither Pickering nor Mullen attended a May 8 House Oversight Committee hearing on the attacks, sparking a heated back and forth about who was invited and when. The rhetoric intensified Sunday during a highly contentious joint appearance with Issa and Pickering on NBC's "Meet the Press" in which Issa maintained the two "refused to come before our committee." Pickering insisted that he was not invited despite expressing a willingness to testify.

Issa also suggested on the program that Pickering and Mullen meet with the committee behind closed doors so as not to create "some sort of stage show." But the two assert in their letter that a public hearing is a "more appropriate forum" and accuse Issa of changing his "position on the terms of our appearance."​


And there continues to be no there there so Issa and the after-birthers(tm) just make one up.

*edit... I just came up with that term to describe the ongoing conspiracy fabricators so if you see it on the Daily Show or whatever... you heard it here first. lol
 
So what is stopping them from spewing on MSNBC, or CNN? I'm sure they'd have them? No? Why not?

Who (what is the person name) who decided to lie to the people and claim it was a video? Come on mr.transperancy you know!

Why did that person make that decision? Again mr. transparent administration knows. Why can't we?
 
Mullen and Pickering look pretty bad right now. They want to free narrative instead of waiting until they are called to hearings and they'll look even worse. Their chance will come, but they're not going to like it.
 
Yeah.....Pickering told the WH he was willing to testify. Not Issa, until this past Sunday. Its one thing for Pickering to tell the WH he is willing to testify, to tell some of their people. But it's not like Pickering appeared before Issa or up until this appearance On any Talk show to say he was willing to testify.

So hows it to feel to know there are more Whistleblowers that are coming out. Wonder if Pickering and Mullen are scratching their heads to figure out who else is going to come forward.

Do you think the Whistleblower that contacted Rogers Committee this last week, which was released this past Sunday too.....kinda shows that the Benghazi issue isn't over.
Now how was that Narrative falling apart? Looks Like the narrative is about to be added to some more. Do you think the Democrats have figured out yet......that the Country isn't going to allow them to repeat a Kenya. Tell us Security is all good and that this will never happen again. Like they did with Kenya. Yet here we are over some more failed Security.....but not just failed Security.

Failure to be able to conduct Operations in Benghazi.....failed to assess Major Warnings that could have been figured out by an 8yr old kid playing a video game. Failed to heed the Warnings of the Host Country and then Lied about those Warnings. That's Right Lied and Denied. Also then there is the fact of hiring Ansar Al Sharia as part of the Security and training then. All Provided by the State Dept Ran by Democrats. Then Dropped the ball on the Anniversary of 911 all due to partying and dropping their guard.

Which doesn't count any other screw ups by the Democrats which has to deal with Libya and or any other issues connected to it. Better Hope no Libyans come forward to testify. Sure would hate to See the Demos go into melt down mode to have that Libyan Security Chief Testify to which people he told 3 days ahead of the attack that he was talking to. Do you think Hillary can hide those people before their names come out as being the Ones that were Talking to the Minister of Interior's Security Chief?

Maybe a couple of Republicans can talk to the Libyans about coming forward to testify. Then lets see how much **** Team Obama and Followers have to say.

Do you think Team Obama has figured it out yet, that Consequences come with his ****-ups.
 
The actions republicans are taking are not the actions of an investigation. They are actions of a prosecutor in a trial. A prosecutor is not going to call witnesses that completely refute their case. That is for the defense to do. There is no defense in an investigation which is why investigators should gather as much evidence as possible to be used in the upocoming case. The republicans know benghazi is not an actual case of wrongdoing in any legal sense by the administration. At best it is a mistake, and that is not criminal or cause of impeachment. So they know there is now going down that road, which is why they are not going down that road with benghazi. Instead they are trying this case in the court of public opinion, and they do not have to call witnesses who will refute them.

This is why the whole benghazi trial is a complete sham. If you look at the republican right it is working on them, but they seem to be it. If you hate Obama you will hate him more. It doesn't really change much, but they do appear to go a long way to blind themselves to the testimony of actual investigators. It gives faux news and republican candidates some fire for their base, but really there is nothing dangerous for obama there because they all disliked him anyway.
 
There is simply no evidence of any wrongdoing. I dont think this fiasco really hurts anything, only the staunch RWers are listening anyway, and it keeps the Fauxites in outrage.
The actions republicans are taking are not the actions of an investigation. They are actions of a prosecutor in a trial. A prosecutor is not going to call witnesses that completely refute their case. That is for the defense to do. There is no defense in an investigation which is why investigators should gather as much evidence as possible to be used in the upocoming case. The republicans know benghazi is not an actual case of wrongdoing in any legal sense by the administration. At best it is a mistake, and that is not criminal or cause of impeachment. So they know there is now going down that road, which is why they are not going down that road with benghazi. Instead they are trying this case in the court of public opinion, and they do not have to call witnesses who will refute them.

This is why the whole benghazi trial is a complete sham. If you look at the republican right it is working on them, but they seem to be it. If you hate Obama you will hate him more. It doesn't really change much, but they do appear to go a long way to blind themselves to the testimony of actual investigators. It gives faux news and republican candidates some fire for their base, but really there is nothing dangerous for obama there because they all disliked him anyway.
 
No, I think that is the RWers list of "facts" in evidence.
Smileys are not evidence. But good try to pretend you had a reply worth anything but some gratuitous backpatting from the right.
 
only the staunch RWers are listening

after meeting in private with 14 select media organizations on "deep background," jay carney was confronted last friday with THIRTY SIX questions about this exploding scandal from the partisans in the press corps

ap: on benghazi, with all due credit to my colleague on my right (jonathan karl), we now have emails showing that the state dept pushed back against talking points language from the cia and expressed concern about how some of the information could be used politically in congress---you have said the white house only made a stylistic change here but these were not stylistic changes, these were content changes---so, again, what role did the white house play not just in making but in directing changes?

carney: the only edit made by the white house or the state dept to those talking points generated by the cia was a change from referring to the facility that was attacked in benghazi from consulate because it was not a consulate to diplomatic post, a matter of non substantive factual correction

ap followup: but this information was information that the cia obviously knew was about prior attacks and warnings---does the president think that it was appropriate to keep that information away simply because of how congress might use it

jeff zeleny: the substance of these emails tho suggests you're having very specific exchanges between state dept officials and an official here at the white house which jonathan uncovered in which a state dept official raises questions about providing talking points that would include a mention of al qaeda because of the concern that congress would use that against the state dept

zeleny a few seconds later interrupts carney who is reading to him: the emails specifically demonstrated a concern about giving members of congress something to use against the state dept

zeleny followup: that's not, that, i mean, the language of that email is pretty clear and the response is pretty clear in terms of saying we want to address victoria nuland's concerns---no matter who ended up providing the talking points in the end it certainly seems clear that there was an influence by the white house and the state dept on the cia talking points

zeleny again: was concern about how congress would react a factor in what went into those talking points as that email suggests

april ryan (american urban radio): since you say this is a minor change, a minor change in venue, that the wording is a change in venue, why such a big deal today with this deep background off-the-record briefing, makes it seem like there's been fuel added to the fire---if this is such a minor issue why not just tell the press like you did from the podium just a few minutes ago instead of having this background briefing with a select few and not the whole corps if it's such a minor issue

dan lothian, cnn: how do you go from a conversation that was apparently happening between various administration officials, various officials of this govt on sept 14, and in those emails, that email exchange, there is a discussion about a group, ansar al sharia, and then after victoria nuland raises questions on the part of the state dept, that reference to that group is then removed from the conversation and doesn't make its way into the talking points---that is not a stylistic edit, that is not single adjustment as you said back in november, that is a major dramatic change in the information

followup: but if you go back to what susan rice was talking about on those talk shows she may have left open the possibility of extremists but this is an altogether different thing when you talk about a specific group, ansar al sharia

cnn continues: but just a followup on this once and for all (carney: you promise once and for all; lothian: well, maybe not)---you are comfortable, you are still comfortable with the way you characterized this back in november---this was a single adjustment---and perhaps it was the cia that drafted these talking points but that's sorta glossing over the fact that you had all of these other parties invovled---these were not stylistic edits, jay, this is very much a content driven change

abc's man of the hour, jonathan karl: you told us that the only changes made to the talking points were stylistic, is it a stylistic change to take out all references to previous terror threats in benghazi

karl interrupts to ask: jay, this was not the change of one word to another, these were extensive changes after they were written by the cia---there were concerns that were raised by the state dept that the white house directed the interagency process used in making these talking points, the original version included references to al qaeda, references to ansar al sharia, the original cia version included extensive discussion of the previous threats and terrorist attacks in benghazi---these were taken out after the cia wrote its initial draft based on input from the state dept, do you deny that

carney: no (24:50)

karl: jay, if you come back to what you said, you said the only changes made by the white house were stylistic and a single word, what we see here is that the state dept raised objections about the references to ansar al sharia, they raised objections to the fact that the cia had warned about terror threats in benghazi prior to the attack---those subjects were taken out of the cia talking points at the direction of the white house based on objections from the state dept

karl: when you said what you said did you know that this had gone thru 12 versions and that there had been extensive changes made, were you aware of that at the time

kirsten welker, nbc: let me ask it in a slightly different way, do you acknowledge that your initial characterization of the white house involvement was to some extent a mischaracterization of the extent to which the white house was involved in the evolution of those talking points

helene cooper, nyt: why not come forward initially and say friday nite white house officials were involved in the interagency process that you've been describing, why not offer that information at the start

cooper: speaker boehner has asked that you release the emails and according to our sources house officials are also asking that they get more documentation about the saturday sept 15 meeting at the white house, will you release those additional emails and documents

peter baker, nyt: you said that republicans are being political about it, is it not also political to say we want to keep something out of these talking points because we might be criticized by members of congress, is that not a political motivation there

baker: but if the phrasing is say, let's not put this out because we're not sure it's true, the phrase is instead let's not put this out because we don't wanna be criticized by our political opponents, is that not political in itself

baker: on the backgrounder, you had earlier said, well everybody does it basically, republicans and democrats, everybody has backgrounders---you all came to town tho saying you were gonna be different, change the rule, be more transparent---don't you think it encourages the idea that you had something or your colleagues or whoever did the backgrounder, i wasn't there, had something to say they didn't want to say out here

baker: you haven't done that on the record, why do a backgrounder

baker: then what purpose is there doing a backgrounder

american urban radio: would you provide that information from the background in this briefing, do you think that you gave much of that information from the briefing, that background briefing today, in your briefing today, on the record

alexis simendinger, rcp: just overarching, looking back at... cuz a lot of us were in the briefing room with you the day after the attacks---is the president satisfied with the way the administration handled this, would you do anything differently, or would he want the administration to do anything differently, looking backward

rcp: following up on that, you talked right away about the video and i'm wondering when you were saying now that you didn't want to be speculative, some of us were wondering why you didn't just wait and say there was an investigation, so why are you saying the video discussion is not speculative

rcp: doesn't this series of emails now suggest that your discussion of the video was speculative, you are cherry picking

rcp: but today the president put out health care work that got wiped out because this has continued because that information was not put out

unidentified reporter: it seems like you're saying a couple different things, you're saying that the first iteration of the talking points that the cia drafted was what they thought happened and the last version was what they knew happened---by the nature of the cia signing off on each iteration of the talking points they were perfectly fine with members of congress or officials discussing anything they included in any of those versions that they signed off on---so why was it necessary, why was it deemed necessary to refer then back to not including certain information in the final draft if they were perfectly fine with that being put out

followup: but if it was improper for the cia to speculate about those things why would they sign off on the first version for others to review

followup: but the cia's not gonna spill secrets they're not comfortable with putting out there

another questioner unknown to me: it's coming up on 8 months to the day since the benghazi attack, the fbi's just got around to releasing 3 images of people they're looking for information for about perpetrators of the attack, is the president confident that the fbi is capable of solving and finding the perpetrators he said months ago was a priority for the president, is the president doing all in his power to do that as well

afp: you talked about the talking points being about what we knew or what the cia believed it knew---the first few drafts say we do know, we do know that islamic extremists with ties to al qaeda participated in the attack---this is not couched, it says we do know

carney: i direct you to the intelligence community

Full Video: Jay Carney Grilled About Benghazi At Friday Press Briefing | RealClearPolitics

1. do you know for whom these talking points were written, were intended?

2. darn that fox/rush/gop/bush...
 
There is simply no evidence of any wrongdoing. I dont think this fiasco really hurts anything, only the staunch RWers are listening anyway, and it keeps the Fauxites in outrage.

Lying is wrong doing......one cannot blame the Host country for Security.....then refuse to accept their warnings. This is and Was The Second Major lie by Team Obama. The First being that the Country was Hit on the Anniversary of 911 and that Obama was to worried about losing his election and was more interested in going out West Coast to party, having some drinks, and a really good time Laughing and Smiling, BSing, while raising money from his base.

The 3rd lie was over the Anti Muslim Video.....Team Obama cannot deny that they misdirected the issue by falsifying information over a video and making false statements concerning Benghazi with connection to it.

Clinton knew the conditions on the ground in Benghazi after the ouster of Gadhafi. Clinton also knew that Other Countries had closed their Embassies and got out of dodge. Moreover.....they knew about the Assassination Attempt on the Brits Ambassador and the Italians. Plus Clinton's People knew the same was going on with Police Chiefs and Judges and those that were sent in by the TNC for that part of Libya.

Inappropriate Judgment Command is in effect here.....this would fall on Clinton. Regardless of the failed Security lapses.
 
And there continues to be no there there so Issa and the after-birthers(tm) just make one up.

*edit... I just came up with that term to describe the ongoing conspiracy fabricators so if you see it on the Daily Show or whatever... you heard it here first. lol

If any of you mother****ers don't start giving me some props for my ingenious new phrase. I had better see an LOL and soon or I'm going to be very, VERY dissappointed in this forum. It's just embarrassing to have to actually fish for compliments at this level.
 
Yea great, I think I gave you a like.
If any of you mother****ers don't start giving me some props for my ingenious new phrase. I had better see an LOL and soon or I'm going to be very, VERY dissappointed in this forum. It's just embarrassing to have to actually fish for compliments at this level.
 
Republicans press for more documents on Benghazi, Dems say case closed | Fox News

House Republicans continue to demand more documents out of the Obama administration on the Benghazi terror attack, praising the release of 100 pages of internal deliberations as an encouraging step but claiming the government should do more to clear up questions.

"While these hundred are good and they shed light on what happened, we have nearly 25,000 that they haven't released," Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, told Fox News.

He noted the documents released late Wednesday -- a release long sought by Republicans -- for the most part covered two days of communications. "What about the ones before and what about all the ones after? Let's go ahead and release those as well," Chaffetz said.

The administration gave no indication that more documents would be forthcoming. White House spokesman Eric Schultz said the decision to make the records public was an "extraordinary step." He said "hopefully" Washington can now move beyond the controversy.

Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez also said on the Senate floor Thursday that the issue has been "fully vetted."

The documents showed the White House, along with several other departments, played a role in editing the so-called "talking points," despite claims from the White House that it was barely involved. And they showed then-CIA Director David Petraeus objected to the watered-down version that would ultimately be used as the basis for U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice's flawed comments on several TV shows the Sunday after the attack.

"Frankly, I'd just as soon not use this," Petraeus told his deputy in a Sept. 15 email.

The 100-page file showed that State Department officials were even more heavily involved in editing the "talking points" than was previously known.

One email sent the Friday night after the attack from an unknown official said: "The State Department had major reservations with much or most of the document."

what are y'all hiding, y'all?

Six months later, where are the Benghazi survivors? - CBS News

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

Schieffer On Scandals: "It's Very, Very Disturbing What We're Seeing" | RealClearPolitics

menendez, by the way, is under fbi investigation

Grand jury investigating Sen. Robert Menendez - The Washington Post
 
There is simply no evidence of any wrongdoing. I dont think this fiasco really hurts anything, only the staunch RWers are listening anyway, and it keeps the Fauxites in outrage.

OF course, there isn't. True, four American lives were lost through negligence and a massive spin/coverup ensued but, hey, the Obamessiah can do no wrong, right?
 
Did you read the CBS story? It is about the Repubs demanding to talk to the survivors, not that the OA was hiding them. I would imagine their identity are being protected for a reason. I thought the emails were released today. More of the same...using CBS as evidence there is some creditability to the RWs claim of wrong doing, but alas, it is more abouthte whacky right wing demands to talk to the survivors.
 
At a press conference on November 14, 2012, President Obama stated that his administration has provided all information regarding "what happened in Benghazi." Yet, when CBS News asked for White House photos from the night of the attacks, surveillance video that was promised last November, and answers to outstanding questions, a White House official told us that there would be no further comment.

CBS News has filed multiple Freedom of Information requests for Benghazi-related material, but none has been provided.

link above (cbs)
 
beast: U.S. Officials Knew Libya Attacks Were Work of Al Qaeda Affiliates - The Daily Beast

cbs: Lt Col Woods says his 16 member team pulled a month before attack - CBS News

the hill: GOP: US Consulate received repeated threats, had requested more security - The Hill's Global Affairs

wapo: White House secret meetings examine al-Qaeda threat in North Africa - The Washington Post

the hill: Report: FBI still not on scene in Benghazi - The Hill's DEFCON Hill

wsj: Militant Link to Libya Attack - WSJ.com

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/19/w...-attack-scoffs-at-us.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

beast: U.S. Consulate in Benghazi Bombed Twice in Run-Up to 9/11 Anniversary - The Daily Beast

wapo: Sensitive documents left behind at U.S. diplomatic post in Libya - The Washington Post

ex: Dems join chorus questioning Obama on attack | WashingtonExaminer

wapo: Panetta says undetermined terrorist group carried out attack on US Consulate in Libya - The Washington Post

abc: Some Administration Officials Were Concerned About Initial White House Push Blaming Benghazi Attack on Mob, Video - ABC News

wsj: Gross Security Failure - WSJ.com

abc: Security Concerns Keep FBI From Scene of Ambassador's Murder, Official Says - ABC News

wapo: From video to terrorist attack: a definitive timeline of administration statements on the Libya attack - The Washington Post

youtube: Tammy Duckworth: Marines Should Have Been in Benghazi - YouTube

beast: Obama's Shaky Libya Narrative - The Daily Beast

cns: Lieberman Calls for Independent Investigation into Libyan Attack | CNS News

cnn: Exclusive: Amb. Chris Stevens worried about al Qaeda hit list – Anderson Cooper 360 - CNN.com Blogs

huffpo: CNN's Use Of Christopher Stevens' Journal Is 'Disgusting': State Dept.

cbs: Why Did The White House Take So Long To Admit Libya Attack Was Terrorism? « CBS

weekly standard: Permanent Spin | The Weekly Standard

wsj: Miscues Before Libya Assault - WSJ

independent: US 'was warned of Libya embassy attack but did nothing' - Independent.ie

fox: Diplomatic, western posts targeted repeatedly in Benghazi in run-up to deadly assault | Fox News

buzzfeed: US Embassy In Cairo Deletes Controversial Tweets

sentinel: Administration Insists Benghazi Attack Not Premeditated | Atlantic Sentinel

independent: Revealed: inside story of US envoy's assassination - World Politics - World - The Independent

atlantic wire: Report: Ambassador Stevens Said He Was on an Al-Qaeda Hit List

cns: Where Was Obama on Night of Benghazi Attack?

cbs, 60 minutes: Obama Says Attacks In Libya And Egypt Are Just "Bumps In The Road" - YouTube
 
beast: U.S. Officials Knew Libya Attacks Were Work of Al Qaeda Affiliates - The Daily Beast

cbs: Lt Col Woods says his 16 member team pulled a month before attack - CBS News

the hill: GOP: US Consulate received repeated threats, had requested more security - The Hill's Global Affairs

wapo: White House secret meetings examine al-Qaeda threat in North Africa - The Washington Post

the hill: Report: FBI still not on scene in Benghazi - The Hill's DEFCON Hill

wsj: Militant Link to Libya Attack - WSJ.com

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/19/w...-attack-scoffs-at-us.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

beast: U.S. Consulate in Benghazi Bombed Twice in Run-Up to 9/11 Anniversary - The Daily Beast

wapo: Sensitive documents left behind at U.S. diplomatic post in Libya - The Washington Post

ex: Dems join chorus questioning Obama on attack | WashingtonExaminer

wapo: Panetta says undetermined terrorist group carried out attack on US Consulate in Libya - The Washington Post

abc: Some Administration Officials Were Concerned About Initial White House Push Blaming Benghazi Attack on Mob, Video - ABC News

wsj: Gross Security Failure - WSJ.com

abc: Security Concerns Keep FBI From Scene of Ambassador's Murder, Official Says - ABC News

wapo: From video to terrorist attack: a definitive timeline of administration statements on the Libya attack - The Washington Post

youtube: Tammy Duckworth: Marines Should Have Been in Benghazi - YouTube

beast: Obama's Shaky Libya Narrative - The Daily Beast

cns: Lieberman Calls for Independent Investigation into Libyan Attack | CNS News

cnn: Exclusive: Amb. Chris Stevens worried about al Qaeda hit list – Anderson Cooper 360 - CNN.com Blogs

huffpo: CNN's Use Of Christopher Stevens' Journal Is 'Disgusting': State Dept.

cbs: Why Did The White House Take So Long To Admit Libya Attack Was Terrorism? « CBS

weekly standard: Permanent Spin | The Weekly Standard

wsj: Miscues Before Libya Assault - WSJ

independent: US 'was warned of Libya embassy attack but did nothing' - Independent.ie

fox: Diplomatic, western posts targeted repeatedly in Benghazi in run-up to deadly assault | Fox News

buzzfeed: US Embassy In Cairo Deletes Controversial Tweets

sentinel: Administration Insists Benghazi Attack Not Premeditated | Atlantic Sentinel

independent: Revealed: inside story of US envoy's assassination - World Politics - World - The Independent

atlantic wire: Report: Ambassador Stevens Said He Was on an Al-Qaeda Hit List

cns: Where Was Obama on Night of Benghazi Attack?

cbs, 60 minutes: Obama Says Attacks In Libya And Egypt Are Just "Bumps In The Road" - YouTube

but, but, but.........

There is simply no evidence of any wrongdoing. I dont think this fiasco really hurts anything, only the staunch RWers are listening anyway, and it keeps the Fauxites in outrage.
 
Lying is wrong doing......one cannot blame the Host country for Security.....then refuse to accept their warnings. This is and Was The Second Major lie by Team Obama. The First being that the Country was Hit on the Anniversary of 911 and that Obama was to worried about losing his election and was more interested in going out West Coast to party, having some drinks, and a really good time Laughing and Smiling, BSing, while raising money from his base.

The 3rd lie was over the Anti Muslim Video.....Team Obama cannot deny that they misdirected the issue by falsifying information over a video and making false statements concerning Benghazi with connection to it.

Clinton knew the conditions on the ground in Benghazi after the ouster of Gadhafi. Clinton also knew that Other Countries had closed their Embassies and got out of dodge. Moreover.....they knew about the Assassination Attempt on the Brits Ambassador and the Italians. Plus Clinton's People knew the same was going on with Police Chiefs and Judges and those that were sent in by the TNC for that part of Libya.

Inappropriate Judgment Command is in effect here.....this would fall on Clinton. Regardless of the failed Security lapses.
Could you please post the exact quote Susan Rice said and prove its a lie?
 
I am not reading all of that. I have already read more of more reputable news sources. Now, pick one thing from one of those articles that has a reasonable amount of evidence to back it up that clearly demonstrates wrong doing by the Obama administration. MMC has come the closest, it is wrong to lie. There are many judgement calls that one can look about on and question, and that can be done any time anything happens. One shred of evidence...just one. Dont feel bad, I was just sitting here watching Issa on Oriley and he cant really explain his mindless accusations either.
but, but, but.........
 
beast: U.S. Officials Knew Libya Attacks Were Work of Al Qaeda Affiliates - The Daily Beast

cbs: Lt Col Woods says his 16 member team pulled a month before attack - CBS News

the hill: GOP: US Consulate received repeated threats, had requested more security - The Hill's Global Affairs

wapo: White House secret meetings examine al-Qaeda threat in North Africa - The Washington Post

the hill: Report: FBI still not on scene in Benghazi - The Hill's DEFCON Hill

wsj: Militant Link to Libya Attack - WSJ.com

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/19/w...-attack-scoffs-at-us.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

beast: U.S. Consulate in Benghazi Bombed Twice in Run-Up to 9/11 Anniversary - The Daily Beast

wapo: Sensitive documents left behind at U.S. diplomatic post in Libya - The Washington Post

ex: Dems join chorus questioning Obama on attack | WashingtonExaminer

wapo: Panetta says undetermined terrorist group carried out attack on US Consulate in Libya - The Washington Post

abc: Some Administration Officials Were Concerned About Initial White House Push Blaming Benghazi Attack on Mob, Video - ABC News

wsj: Gross Security Failure - WSJ.com

abc: Security Concerns Keep FBI From Scene of Ambassador's Murder, Official Says - ABC News

wapo: From video to terrorist attack: a definitive timeline of administration statements on the Libya attack - The Washington Post

youtube: Tammy Duckworth: Marines Should Have Been in Benghazi - YouTube

beast: Obama's Shaky Libya Narrative - The Daily Beast

cns: Lieberman Calls for Independent Investigation into Libyan Attack | CNS News

cnn: Exclusive: Amb. Chris Stevens worried about al Qaeda hit list – Anderson Cooper 360 - CNN.com Blogs

huffpo: CNN's Use Of Christopher Stevens' Journal Is 'Disgusting': State Dept.

cbs: Why Did The White House Take So Long To Admit Libya Attack Was Terrorism? « CBS

weekly standard: Permanent Spin | The Weekly Standard

wsj: Miscues Before Libya Assault - WSJ

independent: US 'was warned of Libya embassy attack but did nothing' - Independent.ie

fox: Diplomatic, western posts targeted repeatedly in Benghazi in run-up to deadly assault | Fox News

buzzfeed: US Embassy In Cairo Deletes Controversial Tweets

sentinel: Administration Insists Benghazi Attack Not Premeditated | Atlantic Sentinel

independent: Revealed: inside story of US envoy's assassination - World Politics - World - The Independent

atlantic wire: Report: Ambassador Stevens Said He Was on an Al-Qaeda Hit List

cns: Where Was Obama on Night of Benghazi Attack?

cbs, 60 minutes: Obama Says Attacks In Libya And Egypt Are Just "Bumps In The Road" - YouTube

Did you read or watch all of these links? Better question: Do you think anybody will consume any of them?
 
Could you please post the exact quote Susan Rice said and prove its a lie?

Here are the relevant passages from that interview:


BOB SCHIEFFER: And joining us now, Susan Rice, the U.N. ambassador, our U.N. ambassador. Madam Ambassador, he says this is something that has been in the planning stages for months. I understand you have been saying that you think it was spontaneous? Are we not on the same page here?

SUSAN RICE (Ambassador to the United Nations): Bob, let me tell you what we understand to be the assessment at present. First of all, very importantly, as you discussed with the President, there is an investigation that the United States government will launch led by the FBI, that has begun and–

BOB SCHIEFFER (overlapping): But they are not there.

SUSAN RICE: They are not on the ground yet, but they have already begun looking at all sorts of evidence of– of various sorts already available to them and to us. And they will get on the ground and continue the investigation. So we’ll want to see the results of that investigation to draw any definitive conclusions. But based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy

BOB SCHIEFFER: Mm-Hm.

SUSAN RICE: –sparked by this hateful video. But soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that– in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution. And that it spun from there into something much, much more violent.

BOB SCHIEFFER: But you do not agree with him that this was something that had been plotted out several months ago?

SUSAN RICE: We do not– we do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.

But as Rice puts it herself the attacks grew out of the protest. The clear implication is they wouldn’t happened if the protests hadn’t happened first to get people all fired up. Since the protests were spontaneous then the attacks were too.

Furthermore, how is it possible for anybody to plan for a spontaneous protest to occur to cover their attack? Either it was planned or it wasn’t and as the transcripts show, Rice clearly said it wasn’t planned.

UPDATE: I’ve added video from Rice’s CBS appearance.

Actually, yes, Susan Rice did say the Benghazi attacks were spontaneous | WashingtonExaminer.com

U were saying something about Rice didn't Lie? She clearly said not planned and Spontaneous. Which we now know there was never any Protest. Nor Demonstrations and even by Testimony from Hicks and Nordstrom validated that. Nor was any of it Spontaneous.
 
I have a problem lying even when it is to protect some legitimate secret, they should just say no comment, it is probably routine to "misinform" to protect official secrets. This is wrong, but probably perfectly acceptable. Certainly not worth all the right wing craziness for the last 8 months.
Here are the relevant passages from that interview:


BOB SCHIEFFER: And joining us now, Susan Rice, the U.N. ambassador, our U.N. ambassador. Madam Ambassador, he says this is something that has been in the planning stages for months. I understand you have been saying that you think it was spontaneous? Are we not on the same page here?

SUSAN RICE (Ambassador to the United Nations): Bob, let me tell you what we understand to be the assessment at present. First of all, very importantly, as you discussed with the President, there is an investigation that the United States government will launch led by the FBI, that has begun and–

BOB SCHIEFFER (overlapping): But they are not there.

SUSAN RICE: They are not on the ground yet, but they have already begun looking at all sorts of evidence of– of various sorts already available to them and to us. And they will get on the ground and continue the investigation. So we’ll want to see the results of that investigation to draw any definitive conclusions. But based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy

BOB SCHIEFFER: Mm-Hm.

SUSAN RICE: –sparked by this hateful video. But soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that– in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution. And that it spun from there into something much, much more violent.

BOB SCHIEFFER: But you do not agree with him that this was something that had been plotted out several months ago?

SUSAN RICE: We do not– we do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.

But as Rice puts it herself the attacks grew out of the protest. The clear implication is they wouldn’t happened if the protests hadn’t happened first to get people all fired up. Since the protests were spontaneous then the attacks were too.

Furthermore, how is it possible for anybody to plan for a spontaneous protest to occur to cover their attack? Either it was planned or it wasn’t and as the transcripts show, Rice clearly said it wasn’t planned.

UPDATE: I’ve added video from Rice’s CBS appearance.

Actually, yes, Susan Rice did say the Benghazi attacks were spontaneous | WashingtonExaminer.com

U were saying something about Rice didn't Lie? She clearly said not planned and Spontaneous. Which we now know there was never any Protest. Nor Demonstrations and even by Testimony from Hicks and Nordstrom validated that. Nor was any of it Spontaneous.
 
Back
Top Bottom