Benghazi

[meazza]

pot meet kettle

 

When has my position changed? If you'd have asked me 6 months ago or last week, I'd say it's a !@#$ing joke to blame this terrorist attack on a youtube video and surprise, none of the new information has given me a reason to change that.

[B-Man]

Clinton ---- Part II

 

 

 

[keepthefaith]

sure, because terrorist attacks have been so rare on US assets in the last decade or so...this type of incident is unique to obama's tenure.

 

How the heck can you defend what has happened?

 

It's obvious now that requests for more security prior to the attack were ignored. It's obvious now that on the day of the attack the decision was made not to make any effort to defend our people. It's obvious now that Susan Rice was told to spin the truth. It's obvious now that it was known all along to have been a planned attack and that everyone from Obama on down were told what to say and that was not to be the truth. This doesn't bother you? It's OK? It doesn't matter?

 

Obama's position on terrorism has been to shove it mostly under the rug and pretend it doesn't exist. He has a similar tactic on our debt and immigration. He ignores the problem and allows it to grow because it's politically advantageous for him and supports the only real agenda for which he has passion which is to provide benefits to the bottom of the economic ladder at the expense of the productive. Achieving "fairness" in our society is all he really cares about. The rest is either white noise or inconvenient.

[PastaJoe]

 

Obama's position on terrorism has been to shove it mostly under the rug and pretend it doesn't exist.

 

Not under the rug, but under the sea...

 

[3rdnlng]

People died and Hillary lied.

[IDBillzFan]

What a mess. Now the WH is leaking incomplete emails to Jake Tapper, who quickly gets corrected by Hayes and Karl. And Axelrod even says it's time to release all the emails.

 

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/05/15/did-the-white-house-selectively-leak-e-mail-to-distort-benghazi-timeline-story/

[IDBillzFan]

WH releases 100 pages of emails and notes on Benghazi. I look forward to how fast the media will transcribe and interpret.

[DC Tom]

WH releases 100 pages of emails and notes on Benghazi. I look forward to how fast the media will transcribe and interpret.

 

Now that everyone's forgotten about it because of AP and the IRS...

[IDBillzFan]

Now that everyone's forgotten about it because of AP and the IRS...

 

I'm reading through the emails quickly, but if I'm not mistaken, the WH just dumped this on State, with CIA saying yes, they edited the talking points, but because State was so concerned.

[DC Tom]

I'm reading through the emails quickly, but if I'm not mistaken, the WH just dumped this on State, with CIA saying yes, they edited the talking points, but because State was so concerned.

 

In other words, pinning in on a Clinton.

 

Nice. Way to step up and lead, Obama.

 

EDIT: just read them all. Looks just like the correspondence I see in the office - worker bees trying to do the right thing, some upper-mid-level staffer (Nuland, in this case) steps in and says "We don't want to commit to anything," everyone panics, and finally a committee collaborates on a watered-down, completely neutered version of things.

Edited May 15, 2013 by DC Tom

[OCinBuffalo]

There will be no peace, and frankly, no justice, until somebody comes forward and explains why our ambassador to the UN pushed the video, why Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both told a mother that it was the video, and swore to go after the film maker, and why, since they all KNEW how this talking points process really occurred, why they would be complicit in the lie, or directly lying themselves, so many days after the fact.

 

One thing we know for sure as a result of these emails: It's time for Jay Carney to go.

Edited May 15, 2013 by OCinBuffalo

[B-Man]

 

The Benghazi Emails: What Do They Show?

 

This afternoon the White House released 100 pages of emails that trace the development of the talking points about Benghazi that Susan Rice eventually used on her notorious tour of the Sunday morning news shows, and that formed the basis for much of what the Obama administration said about the attacks for weeks afterward.

 

This is the original version of the talking points that came out of the CIA, with slight revisions. Note that this initial version is ambiguous, reflecting what was probably genuine uncertainty on the part of the drafters.

 

Note, too, that there is no reference to any YouTube video:

 

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/05/the-benghazi-emails-what-do-they-show.php

[DC Tom]

Note, too, that there is no reference to any YouTube video:

 

 

http://www.powerline...o-they-show.php

 

Yes, but...given that the Cairo demonstrations were "inspired by" the video, Rice's statement to such based on those talking points isn't exactly a stretch. The fact that the points don't mention YouTube is a cute little "gotcha" moment, but barely relevant otherwise.

[IDBillzFan]

Is it me or does it seem like releasing the emails only made things much, much worse for the administration? Did something think this would put the lid on this?

[GG]

Is it me or does it seem like releasing the emails only made things much, much worse for the administration? Did something think this would put the lid on this?

 

At this point, not releasing the emails would have been much worse because it would give more ammunition to the crowd who thinks they were hiding something. Releasing them now with all the other noise is hoping they will get lost in the thicket of other news.

[DC Tom]

Is it me or does it seem like releasing the emails only made things much, much worse for the administration? Did something think this would put the lid on this?

 

The people criticizing him already will find things to criticize in the email. The people defending him will find things to defend him with.

 

The real issue there is that the only real defense those emails provide is "Well, that's the way Washington works." Which is true...but hardly a defense of the guy that was bringing "Hope and Change" to Washington.

[B-Man]

Yes, but...given that the Cairo demonstrations were "inspired by" the video, Rice's statement to such based on those talking points isn't exactly a stretch. The fact that the points don't mention YouTube is a cute little "gotcha" moment, but barely relevant otherwise.

 

 

‘Blame It On the Video’ Was a Fraud for the Cairo Rioting, Too

By Andrew C. McCarthy

 

 

With all the attention the Obama administration’s lies about the Benghazi terrorist attack are, at long last getting, an aspect of the scandal remains under-examined: the assumption that the anti-Islamic video so tirelessly touted by President Obama and his minions as the provocation causing the Benghazi violence did, in fact, cause the rioting at the U.S. embassy in Cairo hours earlier on September 11, 2012.

 

This conventional wisdom is wrong. There is a kernel of truth to it, which is more than you can say about the video’s connection to Benghazi, but no more than that.

 

As we have covered here before (see, e.g., here), the release and return to Egypt of the Blind Sheik, Omar Abdel Rahman (whom I prosecuted in the Nineties), has been a cause célèbre in Egypt for many years. On September 10, 2012, the day before rioting at the U.S. embassy in Cairo, an Egyptian weekly, El Fagr, reported that several jihadist organizations, including the Blind Sheik’s group (Gamaat al-Islamia, or the Islamic Group) and al-Qaeda emir Ayman al-Zawahiri’s group (Egyptian Islamic Jihad), were threatening to burn the American embassy in Cairo to the ground. The promised action against the embassy was an effort to extort the release of Abdel Rahman and other jihadists jailed by the United States.

 

More significantly, as an alert Bryan Preston notices at PJ Media, Ray’s post the day before the Cairo rioting and Benghazi Massacre dovetails with Stephen Hayes’s latest excellent report on Benghazi. In discussing the CIA’s first round of talking points — later substantially erased under pressure from the State Department and the White House — Steve points out the Agency’s assertion that “on 10 September we warned of social media reports calling for a demonstration in front of the [Cairo] Embassy and that jihadists were threatening to break into the Embassy.”

 

Note that neither the Egyptian press report outlined by Ibrahim, nor the CIA report outlined by Hayes, made any mention of the video. The fear was threatened violence from al-Qaeda affiliated jihadists.

 

So how did the anti-Islamic video makes its way into the story? It increasingly appears that the Obama administration did more to publicize and the video and make it relevant than anyone else did.

 

As I said above, there is a kernel of truth to the claim that the video factored into the Cairo rioting. On September 9, two days before, the Grand Mufti publicly denounced “the actions undertaken by some extremist Copts who made a film offensive to the Prophet.” This denunciation led some of the Cairo hooligans to inveigh against the video.

 

It was, however, only one item in a broad list of grievances Islamic supremacists lodged against the United States. Many of the rioters focused on demanding the release of the Blind Sheikh and other jihadists. More to the point, many of them expressed their support for al Qaeda. They gleefully chanted, “Obama, Obama, there are still a million Osamas!” They tore down the Stars-and-Stripes from our flagpole, replacing it with al Qaeda’s notorious black jihad banner.

 

The claim that the Cairo rioting was over the video traces from the fact that the State Department – specifically, the U.S. embassy in Cairo – put out nauseating statements in the hours before the rioting started, deriding “the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims,” and indignantly condemning “religious incitement.”

[IDBillzFan]

At this point, not releasing the emails would have been much worse because it would give more ammunition to the crowd who thinks they were hiding something. Releasing them now with all the other noise is hoping they will get lost in the thicket of other news.

 

Yes, I actually agree. It's just that, this group seems remarkably more inept than most. It's like they genuinely THINK what they're doing is clever, and yet you can comfortably lay down a sawbuck that they gave everyone emails that just made things worse.

 

I think about a line from Hans Gruber, when John McCLane says "You're nothing but a common thief," and Gruber responds "I'm an exceptional thief."

 

This group thinks they're exceptional liars, but they're not even common. They suck at this pretty badly. I half expect the last thing to come out of Obama's mouth in the end to include a reference to "...those meddlin' kids."

[birdog1960]

Yes, I actually agree. It's just that, this group seems remarkably more inept than most. It's like they genuinely THINK what they're doing is clever, and yet you can comfortably lay down a sawbuck that they gave everyone emails that just made things worse.

 

I think about a line from Hans Gruber, when John McCLane says "You're nothing but a common thief," and Gruber responds "I'm an exceptional thief."

 

This group thinks they're exceptional liars, but they're not even common. They suck at this pretty badly. I half expect the last thing to come out of Obama's mouth in the end to include a reference to "...those meddlin' kids."

life actually does sometimes imitate art but not the art that you keep mentioning. truth is rarely so obvious, literal or linear. the explanation here is likely convoluted with many different players and interests involved. the right is presenting the coloring book version. it's easier to fathom and more importantly, to sell.

[3rdnlng]

life actually does sometimes imitate art but not the art that you keep mentioning. truth is rarely so obvious, literal or linear. the explanation here is likely convoluted with many different players and interests involved. the right is presenting the coloring book version. it's easier to fathom and more importantly, to sell.

 

Typical "progressive". When your hero is caught with his hand in the cookie jar, you come up with some way to try to complicate the matter. For heavens sake, they phucking lied for political reasons after having left people to die. Even the unwashed are getting that now. I see you've stayed away from the IRS and AP scandal threads. Then again, all you "progressive" are doing that. I wonder why?