WaPo fact checker: Who rewrote the Benghazi talking points?

posted at 10:01 am on May 7, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

Give Glenn Kessler credit; he was almost alone among the mainstream media in immediately calling Susan Rice’s explanation of the attack on the Benghazi consulate fishy, awarding her two Pinocchios at the time. (Perhaps not too much credit, says Ann Althouse, via Instapundit.)  Should that get bumped up now that whistleblowers are prepared to blow the Obama administration’s fairy tale on Benghazi out of the water?  Kessler argues, correctly, that the better question is who crafted the four-Pinocchio lie, and to what purpose:

Some readers have suggested we should boost the Pinocchio rating for Rice’s comments. Still, it is clear Rice was simply mouthing the words given to her. The bigger mystery now is who was involved in writing — and rewriting — the talking points.

The talking points have become important because, in the midst of President Obama’s reelection campaign, for a number of days they helped focus the journalistic narrative on an anti-Islam video — and away from a preplanned attack. As we noted in our timeline of administration statements, it took two weeks for the White House to formally acknowledge that Obama believed the attack was terrorism. …

The version as of Friday morning, Sept. 14, 2012, was rather fulsome, saying that “Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda participated in the attack” and mentioning the militant group Ansar al-Sharia.

But a senior State Department official — identified by the Weekly Standard as State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland — strongly objected to this draft. The CIA made some changes but apparently it was not enough. Nuland said in an e-mail that the edits did not “resolve all my issues or those of my building leadership” and that the State Department’s leadership “was consulting with [National Security Staff.]”

Minutes later, a White House official (said to be Ben Rhodes, the deputy national security adviser for strategic communications) e-mailed to say that the State Department’s concerns would need to be addressed and the issue would be resolved at a meeting the next day at the White House.

The result, after the meeting, was a wholesale rewriting of the talking points. The House report says “the actual edits, including deleting all references to al-Qaeda, were made by a current high-ranking CIA official,” which the Weekly Standard identifies as Deputy Director Mike Morell.

Oddly, in November, three GOP senators released a statement saying that Morell had told them that the references to al-Qaeda had been removed by the FBI — but then six hours later the CIA contacted them to say Morell “misspoke” and instead the CIA had actually made those deletions. His own apparent role appears not to have been mentioned.

Kessler’s right, but his scope is too narrow.  The rewrite has always appeared to be a cover-up from the White House and/or State Department — and make no mistake, the CIA wouldn’t be carrying water for Hillary Clinton and State.  The big question is: what were they trying to cover?  In my column for The Week, I argue that the context is much broader, and it’s perhaps even more relevant today than ever:

Recall that the attack took place in the middle of the general election, just a couple of weeks after the party conventions. Obama and the Democrats had just argued that the administration’s foreign-policy successes, including the intervention in Libya, showed that America had a steady and seasoned commander-in-chief, and that voters should think twice before electing an untried Mitt Romney.

On the ground in Benghazi, however, the truth was that the sudden vacuum of power had liberated not eastern Libya but the Islamist terrorist networks that had long operated there. Militias competed with the weak central government’s forces for control of Benghazi, and terrorists ran much of what lay outside of the city. Other Western nations packed up their diplomatic installations and headed back to Tripoli, but not the United States. Instead, the U.S. kept its consulate open while reducing its security forces even in the face of intelligence of increasing danger, and escalating attacks on Western assets. …

To ask Clinton’s question again, what difference at this point would it have made? It’s possible that the team could have gotten on the ground in time to repel the second attack, although the timing would have been close. If the hearings focus on this one issue, though, it will miss the real failures in Benghazi.

The administration’s intervention in Libya created a power vacuum in eastern Libya, which it refused to acknowledge, and which eventually led not just to this attack but the near-sacking of Mali, which was prevented only by the French military. Instead, State under Clinton reduced the security at this outpost while our allies fled the city, even while nearby terrorist attacks increased. No one in State or the White House prepared for the obvious al Qaeda interest in attacking vulnerable American assets on the anniversary of 9/11. When the inevitable happened, rather than putting all our assets in play to fight the terrorists, the first impulse of Obama and Clinton seems to have been to deny that a terrorist attack had taken place at all as a means of covering up the gross incompetence of the past year in Libya.

With the administration beating war drums over the use of chemical weapons in Syria, if somewhat half-heartedly, a full and honest accounting of Benghazi and the Obama administration’s Libya policies in general makes a great deal of difference at this or any other point.

The point of the cover-up wasn’t just to preserve the argument that Barack Obama had fatally weakened al-Qaeda, which few really believed anyway.  It was to preserve the foreign-policy expertise argument in the 2012 presidential election, and to keep American voters from seeing the true scope of the disaster of Obama’s intervention in Libya.  And that matters even more now, with the same administration considering another 30,00o-foot intervention that would end up once again benefiting al-Qaeda affiliates on the ground.

Michael Ramirez argues that it matters in another way — that the cover-up of Benghazi is at least as bad as that of Watergate, and perhaps worse, since no one died in Watergate and we didn’t lose a consulate to terrorists:

ramirez-benghazi

Also, be sure to check out Ramirez’ terrific collection of his works: Everyone Has the Right to My Opinion, which covers the entire breadth of Ramirez’ career, and it gives fascinating look at political history.  Read my review here, and watch my interviews with Ramirez here and here.  And don’t forget to check out the entire Investors.com site, which has now incorporated all of the former IBD Editorials, while individual investors still exist.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Hillary Clinton rewrote the talking points.
BTW, does any one else remember a curious report that came out two weeks after Benghazi and after the lies were obvious, that Hillary Clinton would be absolved of all responsibility if the truth were known. That curious report was attributed to Bill Clinton. It was curious at the time because all of the focus was on Obama and his meeting with Panetta. I think the Clintons thought the cat would be let out of the bag and were trying to set up Obama for the fall. But the fall never happened. The MSM censored the story in order to protect Obama, an extreme that the Clintons did not anticipate, but perhaps should have.

pat on May 7, 2013 at 12:34 PM

It really is amazing to me that libs just go meh to what ObowMao has done and what Billy boy did and yet went apesh!t over Nixon which was nothing in comparison.

BeachBum on May 7, 2013 at 12:35 PM

Valerie Jarret.

Probably. Obama is not smart enough.

UnrepentantCurmudgeon on May 7, 2013 at 12:41 PM

They were probably written by Obama’s campaign staff, or Valerie Jarrett.

kregg on May 7, 2013 at 12:43 PM

Why has no one mentioned that David Petraeus was purged as well as several other top Military Officers during the election to include the highly regard highly regarded Marine General James “Mad Dog” Mattis. All within the same time frame.

Egfrow on May 7, 2013 at 12:45 PM

haha, dream on. some of you have completely lost touch with reality.

i know, i’m repeating myself.

sesquipedalian on May 7, 2013 at 11:47 AM

So says the individual weighing in from Milksop Gulch.

ToddPA on May 7, 2013 at 12:47 PM

haha, dream on. some of you have completely lost touch with reality.

i know, i’m repeating myself.

sesquipedalian on May 7, 2013 at 11:47 AM

Because your grasp of reality has been so strong in the past…

4) Why did the Administration watch the attack and do nothing?

Washington Nearsider on November 20, 2012 at 2:24 PM

this is a slanderous accusation without any evidence.

sesquipedalian on November 20, 2012 at 2:29 PM

Except for the fact that Deputy Secretary of State Charlene Lamb and others testified that they watched the attack in ‘real time’ back in Washington because a drone was flying overhead.

rice communicated the cia’s talking points. those did not include a reference to any particular terrorist group, apparently due to lack of sufficient evidence and/or tactical considerations. that does not contradict the fact that attacking the consulate and killing the ambassador and three others was an act of terror.

again, why is this important?

sesquipedalian on November 20, 2012 at 2:21

LMFAO! Rice did not communicate CIA talking points. She communicated talking points that had been stripped of any reference to Al Qaeda and terrorism, as demonstrated by the three versions and the emails of Victoria Nuland and Ben Rhodes.

The video nonsense has all been debunked. Try again, idiot.

JPeterman on November 20, 2012 at 1:06 PM

show me where, ’cause you’re now just digging yourself deeper into bullshit.

sesquipedalian on November 20, 2012 at 1:10 PM

But…

Absolutely, [the Benghazi talking points] were false, they were wrong. There were no protests outside the Benghazi compound there. This was a deliberate and strategic attack on the consulate there. It was false information. There’s no excuse for that.’

- Democratic Congressman Stephen Lynch (MA), 5 May 2013

in any case, these are indeed the altered talking points, as approved by the intelligence community. who altered them and why remain completely inconsequential and uninteresting questions.

sesquipedalian on November 20, 2012 at 1:23 PM

Wrong.

obama said it was “an act of terror.” it’s different from specifically naming aq as the culprit. the first was obvious to everyone and never really disputed. the second was not supported sufficiently by evidence available at the time.

sesquipedalian on November 20, 2012 at 1:33 PM

Really?

‘We all knew it was a terrorist attack from the get-go.’

- Greg Hicks, second-highest-ranking U.S. official in Libya, who spoke with Ambassador Stevens and others on the ground in Benghazi

another fake scandal bites the dust.

yawn.

sesquipedalian on November 20, 2012 at 11:06 AM

Bob Scheiffer on Face the Nation: ‘Cover-up’

Salon mag: Benghazi is a ‘Big Scandal’ and the whistle-blowers are ‘credible.’

Why did the State Dept. spend $70,000 in Pakistan to run ad’s denouncing the video?

it didn’t.

sesquipedalian on November 20, 2012 at 12:28 PM

From the WaPo:

Trying to blunt street protests surrounding a YouTube video that mocks the prophet Muhammad, the Obama administration paid $70,000 to buy ads on Pakistani television disavowing the video, the State Department said Thursday.

i think you’re ignoring how difficult it was to immediately assess what had happened and who were involved. you’re also overstating the importance of what rice said on that tv show.

sesquipedalian on November 20, 2012 at 1:54 PM

They knew what happened and lied to the American people. Some of us were smart enough to know what was going on…unfortunately, you were not.

it’s not going away, sissyhooligan.

kingsjester on November 20, 2012 at 11:10 AM

it’s disappearing in front of your eyes. you’re chasing a mirage.

sesquipedalian on November 20, 2012 at 11:14 AM

LOL! Attempted deflection by yawn. Epic fail.

Resist We Much on May 7, 2013 at 12:47 PM

Pinocchio ratings are really cute. And they double for letting the main stream media off the hook for real reporting.

“Look, we called it out as a possible, maybe close to, almost like a lie. What more do you want us reporters to do?”

dirtseller on May 7, 2013 at 12:48 PM

it’s disappearing in front of your eyes. you’re chasing a mirage.

sesquipedalian on November 20, 2012 at 11:14 AM

Wow, so those people killed there were Holograms??

The TERRORISTS were chasing a Mirage….

..in Life, we encounter Life Forms such as yourself, who
are so completely deranged, as to need a vaccination in order
to breathe….take a bow azzwipe.

ToddPA on May 7, 2013 at 12:53 PM

What difference at this point would it make?

I think the best answer is that we don’t want another Benghazi.

If these same failed policies are also being applied to all of our other embassies, they are at risk. If the same response plan is in place, they won’t be getting any kind of support if they are attacked.

So while Clinton and Obama play politics, our embassies are at risk.

taznar on May 7, 2013 at 12:53 PM

The rewrite has always appeared to be a cover-up from the White House and/or State Department…
– Ed

That line right there…
I think it’s a perfect illustration of how driven some are by a conclusion for which they have little supporting evidence.
Ed says the ‘rewrite has always appeared to be a cover-up’…yet he’s not really sure by who or for what. But still, for him, it’s always appeared that way. So that’ll be the jumping off point.
For sure…yea…a cover-up…by, ahhh…Obama and/or Hillary…or maybe Obama’s campaign and/or Hillary’s staff…or maybe by Obama’s Chicago thugs and/or Hillary’s Hollywood lesbian cabal.

Is there yet a SINGLE piece of evidence or testimony that isn’t offered as such because of some long threaded suggested secret conspiracy?
Nope.
But I know for many…that just proves that someone somewhere has hidden and/or destroyed the evidence…a-ha!

verbaluce on May 7, 2013 at 12:55 PM

It’s important for conservatives to understand that no matter what comes out of the Benghazi scandal, it won’t affect the next election.

Shrillary can be proven to have lied, the State Department could be shown to be in chaos, it might be widely understood that President Dumbo allowed people to die either to enhance his election chances or arm Al-Qaeda or whatever. All that doesn’t matter to the majority of voters in our nation.

What matters instead is free stuff. That’s the bottom line. We passed a tipping points when integrity, the law, the Constitution and common sense are important, and what we have left now are the giveaways: how many, how much, and to whom.

Burke on May 7, 2013 at 12:55 PM

verbaluce on May 7, 2013 at 12:55 PM

Look up delusional.

Schadenfreude on May 7, 2013 at 12:58 PM

This question solves what happened in Benghazi “Why was Amb. Stevens in Benghazi, officially/unofficially, on the anniv. of Sept. 11?”

Schadenfreude on May 7, 2013 at 12:59 PM

Once again, the trolls sound like they’re rooting for the bad guys.

Not surprising.

0bama could put a hollow-point bullet through the head of a toddler on live TV, and a troll would show up here to deflect any criticism of it.

CurtZHP on May 7, 2013 at 1:08 PM

haha, dream on. some of you have completely lost touch with reality.

i know, i’m repeating myself.

sesquipedalian on May 7, 2013 at 11:47 AM

Go play in traffic, f*ckwit.

Midas on May 7, 2013 at 1:13 PM

Look up delusional.

Schadenfreude on May 7, 2013 at 12:58 PM

Ding. Ding. Ding.

A very intelligent and medically expert person put forward the theory that whoever ran around the place with a wild fear of the movie:

1) Was very high ranking.

2) Was probably on a paranoid, possibly cocaine or other drug induced, mania and could not be controlled.

Any patriot would ask a painful, but necessary question at this point, to wit:

Given the admitted hard drug use of some present and past high government officials, isn’t it time to subject them to random, independent drug tests?

IlikedAUH2O on May 7, 2013 at 1:17 PM

verbaluce on May 7, 2013 at 12:55 PM

Ah yes, we should have considered the other possibilities. Such as, they rewrote them for better grammar, or they lost the first version and had to write from scratch, or maybe it’s not really a rewrite at all, but more of a complex cipher, where ‘youtube video’ subs in for ‘AQ jihadis’. Good thinking.

rightmind on May 7, 2013 at 1:18 PM

Some of my posts get my trip wires on my records to light up like the Las Vegas strip at eleven PM on Saturday night.

Just my PTSD, I am sure.

IlikedAUH2O on May 7, 2013 at 1:22 PM

The rewrite has always appeared to be a cover-up from the White House and/or State Department…
– Ed

That line right there…I think it’s a perfect illustration of how driven some are by a conclusion for which they have little supporting evidence.

verbaluce on May 7, 2013 at 12:55 PM

The talking points were first distributed to officials in the interagency vetting process at 6:52 p.m. on Friday. Less than an hour later, at 7:39 p.m., an individual identified in the House report only as a “senior State Department official” responded to raise “serious concerns” about the draft. That official, whom The Weekly Standard has confirmed was State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland, worried that members of Congress would use the talking points to criticize the State Department for “not paying attention to Agency warnings.”

In an attempt to address those concerns, CIA officials cut all references to Ansar al Sharia and made minor tweaks.

But in a follow-up email at 9:24 p.m., Nuland wrote that the problem remained and that her superiors—she did not say which ones—were unhappy. The changes, she wrote, did not “resolve all my issues or those of my building leadership,” and State Department leadership was contacting National Security Council officials directly.

Moments later, according to the House report, “White House officials responded by stating that the State Department’s concerns would have to be taken into account.” One official—Ben Rhodes, The Weekly Standard is told, a top adviser to President Obama on national security and foreign policy—further advised the group that the issues would be resolved in a meeting of top administration officials the following morning at the White House.

On September 17, the day after Rice appeared on the Sunday shows, Nuland defended Rice’s performance during the daily briefing at the State Department. “What I will say, though, is that Ambassador Rice, in her comments on every network over the weekend, was very clear, very precise, about what our initial assessment of what happened is. And this was not just her assessment, it was also an assessment you’ve heard in comments coming from the intelligence community, in comments coming from the White House.”

Nuland and Rhodes were involved. Further, Ms Nuland lied to the media and the American people in the State Department’s Daily Briefing asserting that the talking points spouted by Susan Rice on 5 Sunday talk shows were an accurate representation of the government’s ‘initial assessment’ even though she had, PERSONALLY, changed the ‘initial assessment’ to alleviate the political concerns and worries of her ‘superiors.’

Resist We Much on May 7, 2013 at 1:23 PM

This conspiracy theory didn’t pan out… because of a different conspiracy theory which is totally true!

lester on November 20, 2012 at 11:27 AM

The Big PANS are out!

Resist We Much on May 7, 2013 at 1:29 PM

Ramirez nails it, yet again, except, Obama will have to be pushed onto the helicopter.

ted c on May 7, 2013 at 1:30 PM

You seem to ignore that Obama is responsible for the lives of all Americans serving our country, at home or abroad.

kingsjester on November 20, 2012 at 11:27 AM

so?

sesquipedalian on November 20, 2012 at 11:33 AM

If the President doesn’t care about those he puts into harm’s way, why would you ever think he cares one iota about you?

Resist We Much on May 7, 2013 at 1:31 PM

Who ordered the Code Red? rewrote the Benghazi Talking Points?

in best Tom Cruise courtroom voice….with COL Jessup seething in the catbird seat….

ted c on May 7, 2013 at 1:33 PM

Ramirez: Another Watergate?

haha, dream on. some of you have completely lost touch with reality.

i know, i’m repeating myself.

sesquipedalian on May 7, 2013 at 11:47 AM

You should know, you’ve been out of touch with reality going all the way back to Captain’s Quarters.

Tell me again, how many people died in Watergate, and why was it so much worse than the first murder of a US Ambassador in 33 years?

(Starts Sundial)

Del Dolemonte on May 7, 2013 at 1:33 PM

verbaluce on May 7, 2013 at 12:55 PM

Obviously the re-write was a complete failure.

What was in the original ?
And why the perceived NEED to do a re-write at all ?

I have heard they were uncomfortable with mention of AQ in that they were not sure of it. Fine with me. But why go with the video if they were not sure of that either. If you are not sure, you are not sure. Admit it and get to work on being sure.

Whatever they were trying to “fix” did not work out so well.

Jabberwock on May 7, 2013 at 1:35 PM

Resist We Much you really are a godsend to HA. I want to thank you for your contributions.

D-fusit on May 7, 2013 at 1:36 PM

A US ambassador and 3 others are dead. The ambassador was ass-raped probably worse than they do to a guy in federal-PMITA prison.

a big deal

a VERY big deal

and it ain’t a ‘long time ago’ ….

ted c on May 7, 2013 at 1:36 PM

Bad news don’t get better with time, son.

—sh!t my dad used to say to me, still true today

ted c on May 7, 2013 at 1:37 PM

this is the difficulty you’re facing when your beautiful story line falls apart in the face of facts.

sesquipedalian on November 20, 2012 at 11:52 AM

Res ipsa loquitur.

Resist We Much on May 7, 2013 at 1:37 PM

The point of the cover-up wasn’t just to preserve the argument that Barack Obama had fatally weakened al-Qaeda, which few really believed anyway. It was to preserve the foreign-policy expertise argument in the 2012 presidential election, and to keep American voters from seeing the true scope of the disaster of Obama’s intervention in Libya.

…the bullsh!t of the foreign policy expertise argument

ted c on May 7, 2013 at 1:40 PM

Ignore the idiot trolls. Their opinions dont matter.

Jack_Burton on May 7, 2013 at 1:41 PM

It’s possible that the team could have gotten on the ground in time to repel the second attack, although the timing would have been close. If the hearings focus on this one issue, though, it will miss the real failures in Benghazi.

At best it could’ve repelled the 2nd attack, but, at a minimum, it could’ve evacuated the dead/wounded and destroyed the intelligence that was now at risk.

ted c on May 7, 2013 at 1:42 PM

With the administration beating war drums over the use of chemical weapons in Syria, if somewhat half-heartedly, a full and honest accounting of Benghazi and the Obama administration’s Libya policies in general makes a great deal of difference at this or any other point.

Woot Woot!!!

ted c on May 7, 2013 at 1:43 PM

You seem to ignore that Obama is responsible for the lives of all Americans serving our country, at home or abroad.

kingsjester on November 20, 2012 at 11:27 AM

so?

sesquipedalian on November 20, 2012 at 11:33 AM

Congratulations on completing your transformation into a totaly immoral cockroach..

“so”?

You have no clue as to how much that little confession of indifference to the lives of men and women in uniform, or civilian service puts your elitist self entitled rancid personality on display.

Imagine our surprise how little American life means to you douche-bag.

Just be grateful that you don’t currently need one of those throw away lives to stand between you and some terrorist bullet. They might just say screw it, why defend you?.. you’d just smirk over our dead anyway, why defend.. you?

What a hopeless piece of human refuse you are….

mark81150 on May 7, 2013 at 1:46 PM

Sorry, only time to skim so forgive me if this has already been stated;

Susan Rice did not report to Hillary Clinton. It is a cabinet level position reporting directly to President Boooooosh Obama.

If anyone had their hands on the editing of her talking points, it was Plouffe, Axelrod or Jarret.

can_con on May 7, 2013 at 1:48 PM

It’s possible that the team could have gotten on the ground in time to repel the second attack, although the timing would have been close. If the hearings focus on this one issue, though, it will miss the real failures in Benghazi.

At best it could’ve repelled the 2nd attack, but, at a minimum, it could’ve evacuated the dead/wounded and destroyed the intelligence that was now at risk.

ted c on May 7, 2013 at 1:42 PM

The only relevant question for me..

Is that Obama did not even TRY to save those men.. no effort at all..

Maybe they could have been saved, the secure documents prevented from falling into the jihadi’s hands.. but the old airman in me cries out in outrage..

why did he not TRY to save them?

That Obama and close staff are uncaring of the peasants lives is no shock.. that so many democrats are making excuses for him is.. The idiot hardcore left would excuse mass genocide on cue if they deemed it necessary, they have proven that…. but rank and file moderate dems?

Come on people.. LOOK at what he’s DONE in your name, all to protect his own special little pink @ss.

mark81150 on May 7, 2013 at 1:53 PM

I’ve always said it is worse than Watergate.

Heck, ACORN is worse than Watergate.

Shoot! Fast & Furious is much worse than Watergate.

kirkill on May 7, 2013 at 1:54 PM

some how this whole thing reminds me of this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7tGEEWQIhQ

Conservative4ev on May 7, 2013 at 1:55 PM

Has anyone from the LSM come forward to state who booked the full-ginsgerg that Sunday on behalf of Susan Rice?

Let’s start there and with that person and work our way backwards.

can_con on May 7, 2013 at 1:57 PM

Obama and Hillary will not pay a price no matter what. I hate it but we all know it.

Wagthatdog on May 7, 2013 at 2:00 PM

Ignore the idiot trolls. Their opinions dont matter.

Jack_Burton on May 7, 2013 at 1:41 PM

No.. they are as relevant as used toilet paper.. the need they have to p1ss on our honored dead is what really galls.. remember how some trolls right after it happened, had the nerve to say those two SEAL’s died because they stupidly disobeyed orders, to run to protect those American lives.. so they pulled a Markos “screw em”…

Valor, Honor, Devotion to duty and selfless heroism.. and they smirk and roll their eyes..

Just once I wish, I was the bear I was pre-spine injury, and meet them in a bar.. all of them.. I’d still like my odds.. they can even bring friends.. I have a lot of contempt for them to share.

mark81150 on May 7, 2013 at 2:01 PM

David Burge ‏@iowahawkblog 6 May

Remember when CNN debate “moderator” Candy Crowley “corrected” Romney on #Benghazi? Yeah, good times.

ted c on May 7, 2013 at 2:06 PM

…the President doesn’t care about those he puts into harm’s way…
Resist We Much

I have heard…
Jabberwock

The ambassador was raped…
ted c

Why has no one mentioned that David Petraeus was purged…
Egfrow

probably written by Obama’s campaign staff, or Valerie Jarrett.
kregg

He needs Deval, or such, as a front man.
Schadenfreude

The kenyan is a control freak (or his puppetmaster soros and jarret)
acyl72

She was getting a payoff for lying for Obama….
NJ Red

verbaluce on May 7, 2013 at 2:08 PM

Obama and Hillary will not pay a price no matter what. I hate it but we all know it.

Wagthatdog on May 7, 2013 at 2:00 PM

Clinton proved that democrats don’t give a damn about the rule of law.. That some independents and we in the center right still do,.. only matters if the media drooling support wanes away as even they recoil from this..

I don’t know.. morons in the dem party would defend any crime, as long as it was a democrat who did it.. Republicans, they’d put up against a wall.. but never their own.

It all depends..

will the few, very few moderates in the regular media, like that brave woman at CBS.. refuse to keep up the party line and say “no,.. not anymore”.. FOX only reaches some.. We have to crack the wall of MSM compliance with the DNC.. maybe the dike will spring enough leaks this time..

so they can’t bury it..

I can hope..

mark81150 on May 7, 2013 at 2:09 PM

If anyone had their hands on the editing of her talking points, it was Plouffe, Axelrod or Jarret.

can_con on May 7, 2013 at 1:48 PM

And, for several reasons, there is no way that Comrade O was not involved in that process.

There is no way he did not know the facts and how they differed from the “official” WH version of events these three were concocting and that his UN Ambassador would tell the US and the world.

farsighted on May 7, 2013 at 2:17 PM

for a number of days they helped focus the journalistic narrative on an anti-Islam video

I could never indict low information journalism better than that one line. Talking points focused out little minds, not actual legwork and investigation.

A pathetic, rotten, corrupt profession journalism has become.

MNHawk on May 7, 2013 at 2:19 PM

Just once I wish, I was the bear I was pre-spine injury, and meet them in a bar.. all of them.. I’d still like my odds.. they can even bring friends.. I have a lot of contempt for them to share.

mark81150 on May 7, 2013 at 2:01 PM

Would gladly stand with you.

Midas on May 7, 2013 at 2:20 PM

Kessler argues, correctly, that the better question is who crafted the four-Pinocchio lie, and to what purpose:

The lie was crafted to cover up the consequences of Obama’s brain dead intervention in Libya and Clinton’s failure to answer numerous calls for better security.

There are much better questions:

1. Who gave the orders to lie. ( The fact it’s rhetorical doesn’t mean it’s not a good question)
2. Who blackmailed Petraeus? (Is there any other reasonable explanation for his lies?)

Basilsbest on May 7, 2013 at 2:24 PM

…the President doesn’t care about those he puts into harm’s way…
Resist We Much

verbaluce on May 7, 2013 at 2:08 PM

Don’t take me out of context. Put it all out there for everyone to see…and keep an eye out for the word ‘IF’:

You seem to ignore that Obama is responsible for the lives of all Americans serving our country, at home or abroad.

kingsjester on November 20, 2012 at 11:27 AM

so?

sesquipedalian on November 20, 2012 at 11:33 AM

If the President doesn’t care about those he puts into harm’s way, why would you ever think he cares one iota about you?

I will say it again. If this or any other President doesn’t care about those he puts into harm’s way, why would you EVER think he cares one iota about you, verbaluce?

Or, do you, somehow, think you’re special?

Resist We Much on May 7, 2013 at 2:31 PM

A pathetic, rotten, corrupt profession journalism has become.

MNHawk on May 7, 2013 at 2:19 PM

It has. Thankfully we live in a time where because of technology, traditional journalism doesn’t have quite the monopoly on information that it used to. Still bad, but I can hope.

rightmind on May 7, 2013 at 2:32 PM

LOL! Attempted deflection by yawn. Epic fail.

Resist We Much on May 7, 2013 at 12:47 PM

Bravo. Excellent deflection deflation of trial balloons

I always go back to the video for one piece of evidence that does not fit any script. A youtube video with few hits, which could be used to create riots, whose producer was a middle eastern apostate easily arrested on other charges. The video had to be unknown in the middle east, to be effective. Not something found on the fly. Was it really discovered after the attack, to use as a cover up, or in a box, waiting

A second item that does not fit is the completely missing Obama: Here, Hillary, you run the gov for the next eight hours. Obama was so missing, there was no one to pin it on but Hillary. I can see her falling on her rubber sword if cornered, but not volunteering to be a scapegoat. Wonder who pulled the video out of the box, and when?

That, to me, is the most interesting question: who pulled out the video, and how did they say they discovered it?

entagor on May 7, 2013 at 2:34 PM

D-fusit on May 7, 2013 at 1:36 PM

Thanks!

Resist We Much on May 7, 2013 at 2:34 PM

Also, the trolls are desperate to talk about anything but what is now fact, namely, that security requests were denied, that help was not sent, and that the administration knowingly deceived about the causes of the attack in the following days and weeks. Just a short time ago, they were calling these facts conspiracy theory.

If I were them, I would want to change the subject too.

rightmind on May 7, 2013 at 2:36 PM

Resist We Much on May 7, 2013 at 12:47 PM

you clearly have way too much time on your hands. why don’t you do something more useful than digging up old quotes and presenting them without proper context?

nothing has changed since then that would prove that i was wrong back then. benghazi continues to be a desperate attempt to manufacture a scandal, but by all means keep focusing on it like a laser beam. it keeps you occupied with something harmless, which is good for all of us.

sesquipedalian on May 7, 2013 at 2:46 PM

liberal media has a real problem now, they can still ignore the story, but risk hurting Hillary in 2016; or be real journalists and see where the chips fall…

burserker on May 7, 2013 at 2:51 PM

I always go back to the video for one piece of evidence that does not fit any script. A youtube video with few hits, which could be used to create riots, whose producer was a middle eastern apostate easily arrested on other charges. The video had to be unknown in the middle east, to be effective. Not something found on the fly. Was it really discovered after the attack, to use as a cover up, or in a box, waiting

A second item that does not fit is the completely missing Obama: Here, Hillary, you run the gov for the next eight hours. Obama was so missing, there was no one to pin it on but Hillary. I can see her falling on her rubber sword if cornered, but not volunteering to be a scapegoat. Wonder who pulled the video out of the box, and when?

That, to me, is the most interesting question: who pulled out the video, and how did they say they discovered it?

entagor on May 7, 2013 at 2:34 PM

Thanks. The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, especially the Salafists, had planned the protest on Cairo for weeks. The stated reason was simple: RELEASE THE BLIND SHEIKH.

I am not in the intelligence community nor employed by the government, BUT I KNEW ABOUT THE PROTEST BEFORE IT HAPPENED.

I have laid out the timeline here:

Hey, Alice, What Does A Timeline Look Like At The Bottom Of A Rabbithole?

It’s 3 AM, The Phone Is Ringing, And No One In The Obama Administration Is Answering

The Saturday before the protest, 8 September 2012, the protest planners had aired a snippet of the video on a show hosted by Sheikh Khalid Abdallah, a firebrand extremist, on the Salafist television station Al-Nas, which is owned by a Saudi media group. Al-Nas has been regularly described as a channel known for ‘promoting religious or sectarian hatred.’ It was thusly labelled by the Mubarak government and was and has been described as such by governments, organisations, and those that cover Egyptian news for years.

EVEN THOUGH THIS ‘VILE, DESPICABLE, AND DISGUSTING’ VIDEO WAS AIRED ON SATURDAY, 8 SEPTEMBER 2012, THERE WERE NO PROTESTS OR OUTRAGES ON THAT DAY, SUNDAY, OR MONDAY. Just ‘coincidentally’ the crowd that was already planning on protesting at the American Embassy in Cairo on 11 September 2012 to demand the release of the Blind Sheikh ‘spontaneously protested’ and expressed their ‘outrage’ over the ‘youtube video’ ONLY on the day they were ALREADY planning a protest.

The Egyptian government was aware of the planned protest days before the video was ever aired on television and notified the US government.

The video NEVER had ANYTHING to do with what happened in Benghazi. Furthermore, it is a demonstrable LIE that there were ‘protests happening at American embassies and other installations over the youtube video’ on 11 September 2012. The protests that spread around the world did NOT happen until AFTER Benghazi took place and the US government set out to rend its garments over the constitutionally-protected speech of Nakoula Basseley Nakoula. Indeed, the administration sought its censorship and was denied. Then, it had Nakoula arrested in the middle of the night by 10 Federal agents, perp-walked, and thrown in solitary confinement in a Federal detention centre on a probation violation, without bail, where he would remain until his court date: THE DAY AFTER THE AMERICAN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. He is still in jail.

I laid out all of this not long after Benghazi with the links where the information was available BEFORE 11 September 2012.

Resist We Much on May 7, 2013 at 2:58 PM

you clearly have way too much time on your hands. why don’t you do something more useful than digging up old quotes and presenting them without proper context?

nothing has changed since then that would prove that i was wrong back then. benghazi continues to be a desperate attempt to manufacture a scandal, but by all means keep focusing on it like a laser beam. it keeps you occupied with something harmless, which is good for all of us.

sesquipedalian on May 7, 2013 at 2:46 PM

Keep flailing.

Resist We Much on May 7, 2013 at 3:01 PM

nothing has changed since then that would prove that i was wrong back then. benghazi continues to be a desperate attempt to manufacture a scandal, but by all means keep focusing on it like a laser beam. it keeps you occupied with something harmless, which is good for all of us.

sesquipedalian on May 7, 2013 at 2:46 PM

Just like your insistence Boston wasn’t a terrorist attack, and that you were going to rub our faces in it?

Chuck Schick on May 7, 2013 at 3:03 PM

EL-WHITE ‏@elwhiteym 4h

Where was President Obama and what was he doing?…….#benghazi.. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/7/moment-of-truth-on-benghazi/#ixzz2ScOwCJJc&w

ted c on May 7, 2013 at 3:08 PM

Resist We Much on May 7, 2013 at 2:31 PM

So your suggestion is that the President does care…
Or did I perhaps properly represent your position?

verbaluce on May 7, 2013 at 3:13 PM

you clearly have way too much time on your hands.

sesquipedalian on May 7, 2013 at 2:46 PM

Said the troll who has nothing better to do than troll a right-of-center blog.

farsighted on May 7, 2013 at 3:18 PM

Who Could’ve Given the Stand-Down Order in Benghazi?
—Ace

The answer isn’t as obvious as you might think. Or, rather, it’s exactly as obvious as you think, but the left will of course attempt to claim that any number of persons might have given this order and we’ll never know who they were so oh well let’s move on to something else.

In fact, as Kerry Pickett reports, a source tells her only the president or someone directly conveying his order could give such an instruction.

ted c on May 7, 2013 at 3:25 PM

Diana West: “Spontaneous protest, unplanned attack: That was Petraeus’ testimony as CIA director three days after U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed in Benghazi, Libya.

Within 24 hours of the attack, however, the White House and top officials at the State Department, the Pentagon and the intelligence agencies knew that no protest, spontaneous or other, had taken place. They knew the U.S. had been hit on the 9/11 anniversary by a planned attack by al-Qaida affiliates. Ruppersberger’s account, then, indicates Petraeus deceived the committee. When committed knowingly, as former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy recently pointed out, such deception is a felony.

This same phony story — that “extreme groups” took advantage of a “spontaneous” protest over a YouTube video to mount an “unplanned” attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi — would be repeated by the Obama White House for two weeks, climaxing in the president’s U.N. address on Sept. 25. There, President Obama cited the video six times and declared to the world body, dominated by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (an Islamic bloc of 56 nations plus the Palestinian Authority): “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”
Blaming the YouTube video for the violence was, in effect, blaming free speech, which is also OIC policy. Additionally, it denied the reality of the planned jihad attack, which, by extension, denied that al-Qaida-style jihad terrorism still exists at the vanguard of expansionist Islam.

To date, the media haven’t asked President Obama and his top officials, why? Why the administration-wide cover-up? Why didn’t military help get to Battleground Benghazi? Without coming clean, President Obama has been re-elected, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton mentioned as a 2016 presidential candidate, and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice floated as the next secretary of state.

And Petraeus? On Nov. 12, Fox News reported that “congressional leaders,” believing Petraeus lied to them in September, had “already considered charging Petraeus with perjury, but said they planned to withhold judgment until he testified this week.” (Under oath or not, it is a crime to lie to federal officials.) We have heard no such tough talk since.”

And BTW – Diana West: “Even though it appears the former CIA director lied to the House Intelligence Committee on Sept. 14, and may have lied again to the same committee on Nov. 16, he is starting to slip out of the inner ring of Benghazi cover-up suspects. We are losing sight of his official role in the deception as the media lens ossifies over a tawdry love triangle. For this, he must be thankful. Maybe to ensure the good fortune continues, Petraeus has hired Bob Barnett, the $975-per-hour Washington superlawyer to officials with issues and/or big book deals, to manage what reports call Petraeus’ “transition to civilian life.”

VorDaj on May 7, 2013 at 3:26 PM

Can you sense it? That’s the coming realization by the LSM that Benghazi is gonna doom Hillary for 2016. Sure, they’ll cover for Obama for a bit, but between His Presidency, Hillary’s run for President and their own credibity, they are gonna protect themselves. Hillary is about to lose her “next in line” status to Elizabeth Warren, and my darkhorse eventual nominee, the blank slate Kirsten Gillebrand.

can_con on May 7, 2013 at 3:27 PM

So your suggestion is that the President does care…
Or did I perhaps properly represent your position?

verbaluce on May 7, 2013 at 3:13 PM

My post – not suggestion – was in response to what sesqui wrote: ‘So?’

So? Really? It doesn’t matter? Well, if it doesn’t matter when a President hand-picks someone as Ambassador, sends him to a foreign location, and that person is killed, along with other brave Americans, then why would ANYONE ever think that such a President would care about them? After all, he knows and has a relationship with the Ambassador. He doesn’t with 99.99% of normal, everyday, average Americans.

I, purposefully, did not name Obama. I referred to ‘The President.’ My post was NOT aimed at any single POTUS, but ALL Presidents.

I never said that Obama didn’t care about Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty, and Ty Woods. My point was that, if he or any President didn’t care about them, then why should any American believe that he cares about them?

I would think that this is a point on which you and the overwhelming majority of Americans would agree.

Having said that, it has always bothered me that he went to bed and had no further contact with Secretary Panetta after the 5:00 PM meeting. Perhaps, he thought it was one of those things that ‘the military handled’ or whatever. I don’t know why, but it has bothered me because I’ve been assigned to do jobs before with oversight where there was a big problem that had developed (someone actually died in an accident and others were missing on one occasion). I didn’t stop working until their whereabouts were determined, the legal situation under control, and the PR people were told what could be released to the media. Maybe, I was too involved, especially for the lawyer assigned to a situation, but I felt that it was my duty. So, I guess there is those experiences that lead me to know that I wouldn’t have gone to bed or even on a campaign stop, but that is not the same thing as saying that Obama didn’t care at all.

Resist We Much on May 7, 2013 at 3:36 PM

Just like your insistence Boston wasn’t a terrorist attack, and that you were going to rub our faces in it?

Chuck Schick on May 7, 2013 at 3:03 PM

i bet you’ll have eggs on your faces when we find out who did it – comments are bookmarked just in case i have to rub it in, which i’ll do with great glee.

sesquipedalian on April 16, 2013 at 12:41 AM

Resist We Much on May 7, 2013 at 3:38 PM

Old/busted:

So did Obama initially blame terrorists or the video?

weaselyone on November 20, 2012 at 1:15 PM

…2. obama said it was “an act of terror.”…

sesquipedalian on November 20, 2012 at 1:33 PM

New hotness:

He didn’t call Benghazi a terrorist attack on 12 September 2012…

Resist We Much on April 16, 2013 at 12:40 AM

of course, since it clearly wasn’t an act of terrorism…

sesquipedalian on April 16, 2013 at 12:48 AM

Sesqui will say whatever she needs to for any scenario at any given time to protect her Love God.

Resist We Much on May 7, 2013 at 3:52 PM

Obama’s very own my pet goat:

It’s the anniversary of the worst terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, rage and protests are fomenting in many M.E. hotspots, his own PDB’s since June would have included the recent bombings in Benghazi and pull out of British embassy less than a month ago in Benghazi.

And then he is advised that the consulate is under siege. He meets with Panetta around 5 for an hour. Then what?

Does he assemble everyone in the Sit room? Apparently not. Does he stay and monitor the situation? Apparently not. Does he move heaven and earth and bypass any red tape to get help there? Apparently not.

The president goes to sleep.

p.s. I don’t think GWB should have reacted differently in front of a classroom of children. Used as a reference point only.

can_con on May 7, 2013 at 3:57 PM

I, purposefully, did not name Obama. I referred to ‘The President.’ My post was NOT aimed at any single POTUS, but ALL Presidents.
Resist We Much on May 7, 2013 at 3:36 PM

You are trying way too hard with that line.

Having said that, it has always bothered me that he went to bed and had no further contact with Secretary Panetta after the 5:00 PM meeting.

Well of course it bothers you. You are predisposed to be bothered by virtually any irrelevant detail presented as some piece of some mysterious puzzle.
And of course how perfect that you’re troubled by a conversation he did NOT have. What does it mean?
Well maybe not much.

Of course something went wrong in Benghazi…Americans died there.
And if some folks around Obama had concerns about the political angles…well sure as heck so did Mitt Romney. And so did the GOP, DNC, Karl Rove, James Carville, etc.
But to extrapolate from that all this murderous and nefarious malice and conspiracy and heartless motivations…it’s just drama-queening.

verbaluce on May 7, 2013 at 3:59 PM

benghazi continues to be a desperate attempt to manufacture a scandal, but by all means keep focusing on it like a laser beam. it keeps you occupied with something harmless, which is good for all of us.

sesquipedalian on May 7, 2013 at 2:46 PM

Wipe your chin and adjust your kneepads, they’re crooked.

Now tell us what is so “harmless” about trying to find out what caused the first murder of a US Ambassador in 33 years. And what was “manufactured” about that. Is he really alive now, in Dick Cheney’s basement?

Face Facts, Minerva. If he had been murdered on Bush’s watch, you would have been calling for Bush’s head and his Impeachment on Day 1.

Oh, and I know you can’t see it, but the “I’m With Stupid” sign on your back is also crooked.

F-

Del Dolemonte on May 7, 2013 at 4:03 PM

Obama’s very own my pet goat:

can_con on May 7, 2013 at 3:57 PM

Never less than amusing when Obama attacks reference something like this.
I guess next we’ll hear a ‘heck of a’job’ line tossed at a current WH official..or maybe someone will accuse the President of ‘swift boating ‘ someone.
Ha.

verbaluce on May 7, 2013 at 4:03 PM

verbaluce on May 7, 2013 at 4:03 PM

How cute, verbaluce the clown is back. Still shrieking hysterically that this is all a big conspiracy. Keep squealing, Holmes. You’re amusing.

HumpBot Salvation on May 7, 2013 at 4:12 PM

verbaluce on May 7, 2013 at 4:03 PM

An attack? Not sure where you read that in there. I was just stating information commonly available to the general public. An attack would have gone on much longer…say like in M Moore’s agitprop movie, or in a typical troll response as seen daily on HA.,

Notice I didn’t need to resort to requoting Obama’s own words regarding his worst trait.

can_con on May 7, 2013 at 4:13 PM

And if some folks around Obama had concerns about the political angles…well sure as heck so did Mitt Romney. And so did the GOP, DNC, Karl Rove, James Carville, etc.

Just so we’re clear; you’re saying it’s OK to lie about something like Benghazi, because telling the truth might help your political opponents?

Wow.

rightmind on May 7, 2013 at 4:13 PM

And if some folks around Obama had concerns about the political angles…well sure as heck so did Mitt Romney. And so did the GOP, DNC, Karl Rove, James Carville, etc.

Just so we’re clear; you’re saying it’s OK to lie about something like Benghazi, because telling the truth might help your political opponents?

rightmind on May 7, 2013 at 4:13 PM

No.

verbaluce on May 7, 2013 at 4:37 PM

verbaluce on May 7, 2013 at 2:08 PM

Check your temperature.

Schadenfreude on May 7, 2013 at 4:39 PM

LOL! Attempted deflection by yawn. Epic fail.

Resist We Much on May 7, 2013 at 12:47 PM

ZING!

kregg on May 7, 2013 at 4:45 PM

No.

verbaluce on May 7, 2013 at 4:37 PM

I feel like that’s a minor breakthrough. So do you agree that the administration knowingly distributed false information to the public (and to Congress) about the causes and nature of the attack?

rightmind on May 7, 2013 at 4:48 PM

Check your temperature.

Schadenfreude on May 7, 2013 at 4:39 PM

98.6 Fahrenheit.

Check your blood pressure.

verbaluce on May 7, 2013 at 4:55 PM

Niagra Falls Benghazi, slowly I turn, step by step, inch by inch…….

The Administration 5/8/13

D-fusit on May 7, 2013 at 4:56 PM

No.

verbaloon on May 7, 2013 at 4:37 PM

I feel like that’s a minor breakthrough. So do you agree that the administration knowingly distributed false information to the public (and to Congress) about the causes and nature of the attack?

rightmind on May 7, 2013 at 4:48 PM

LOL, start your sundial running!

A reminder for our Low-IQ Democrats here. This video is of Hillary standing over the body of the first US Ambassador to be killed in the line of duty in a third of a century, and Dear Leader with her. This is what she had to say on that day:

“This has been a difficult week for the State Department and for our country. We’ve seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful internet video that we had nothing do to with. It’s hard for the American people to make sense of that, because it is senseless, and it is totally unacceptable. The people of Egypt, Libya, Yemen and Tunisia, did not trade the tyranny of a dictator for the tyranny of a mob. Reasonable people and responsible leaders in these countries in these countries need to do everything they can to restore security and hold accountable those behind these violent acts. And we will, under the president’s leadership, keep taking steps to protect our personnel around the world.”

Video doesn’t Lie. Discuss!

Del Dolemonte on May 7, 2013 at 5:01 PM

I feel like that’s a minor breakthrough. So do you agree that the administration knowingly distributed false information to the public (and to Congress) about the causes and nature of the attack?

rightmind on May 7, 2013 at 4:48 PM

Despite the insistence by many here that evidence of such exists, I’ve seen none.
What was the info that you believe the admin presented, knowing it to be false?

verbaluce on May 7, 2013 at 5:02 PM

Check your blood pressure.

verbaluce on May 7, 2013 at 4:55 PM

You s/b so healthy.

Schadenfreude on May 7, 2013 at 5:03 PM

But to extrapolate from that all this murderous and nefarious malice and conspiracy and heartless motivations…it’s just drama-queening.

verbaluce on May 7, 2013 at 3:59 PM

He covered up to keep his azz in the WH and Michelle’s mouth full of free lobsters. It’s that simple.

Schadenfreude on May 7, 2013 at 5:06 PM

verb, you proved to be a real dummy in this thread, for shame. It’s expected of sesqu, but not from you.

Schadenfreude on May 7, 2013 at 5:08 PM

Despite the insistence by many here that evidence of such exists, I’ve seen none.
What was the info that you believe the admin presented, knowing it to be false?

verbaluce on May 7, 2013 at 5:02 PM

Well, I was specifically referring to statements made by the administration saying that it was a ‘spontaneous protest’ or ‘demonstration’, and that it was caused by a youtube video.

We’ve got exchanges between CIA, State, and officials in the admin now that show that all that information was known, edited out, and replaced by a false narrative. We’ve also got 2nd in command at the diplomatic compound contradicting the administration’s narrative.

rightmind on May 7, 2013 at 5:09 PM

Del Dolemonte on May 7, 2013 at 5:01 PM

What is your point?
Is there something in Clinton’s statement you feel was false?
Or are you theorizing it was some carefully crafted piece of propaganda designed to distract from the real truth?
As you guys don’t really stick to any single narrative here (aside from “Obama lied!”) – please be specific in what your suggesting.
I don’t wanna assume you agree with one purely speculative theory…when it might be a completely different speculative theory you’re running with.

verbaluce on May 7, 2013 at 5:09 PM

rightmind on May 7, 2013 at 4:48 PM

Despite the insistence by many here that evidence of such exists, I’ve seen none.

What was the info that you believe the admin presented, knowing it to be false?

verbaloon on May 7, 2013 at 5:02 PM

See my post directly above yours. I suppose you’ll tell us this video was Photoshopped and is a Fake?

Del Dolemonte on May 7, 2013 at 5:11 PM

Del Dolemonte on May 7, 2013 at 5:01 PM

What is your point?

Is there something in Clinton’s statement you feel was false?

verbaloon on May 7, 2013 at 5:09 PM

Please tell us why you believe her Lie in that video about the video was in fact true, and we’ll go from there.

Del Dolemonte on May 7, 2013 at 5:12 PM

As bad as Clinton, Obama, et al, were on this, how can we EVER trust the CIA to give an impartial, factual evaluation??? (If you ever DID trust the CIA).

The State Dept. and/or the White House TWICE told the CIA to change their talking points. What the he11 kind of CIA do we have that cowtows to politicians on such a basis.

Heck, if the CIA is that dishonest and willing to bend over for politicians in office, why didn’t Hillary ask the CIA to blame Bush????

fred5678 on May 7, 2013 at 5:15 PM

Well, I was specifically referring to statements made by the administration saying that it was a ‘spontaneous protest’ or ‘demonstration’, and that it was caused by a youtube video.

We’ve got exchanges between CIA, State, and officials in the admin now that show that all that information was known, edited out, and replaced by a false narrative. We’ve also got 2nd in command at the diplomatic compound contradicting the administration’s narrative.

rightmind on May 7, 2013 at 5:09 PM

Based on actual documents and official releases (not the alleged secret hidden ones) the admin’s statements reflected that which they were getting from the CIA. The information evolved as time went on.
There is nothing that shows at any time the WH officially offering up anything that stood in contradiction to what they were being provided by intelligence services.
There is nothing that shows them knowingly providing false info.

verbaluce on May 7, 2013 at 5:17 PM

He covered up to keep Michelle’s mouth full of free lobsters. It’s that simple.

Schadenfreude on May 7, 2013 at 5:06 PM

At last — incisive analysis worthy of a REAL CIA white paper.

fred5678 on May 7, 2013 at 5:21 PM

Please tell us why you believe her Lie in that video about the video was in fact true, and we’ll go from there.

Del Dolemonte on May 7, 2013 at 5:12 PM

“We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful internet video that we had nothing do to with.”

Is that the ‘lie’ you refer to?

verbaluce on May 7, 2013 at 5:22 PM

At last — incisive analysis worthy of a REAL CIA white paper.

fred5678 on May 7, 2013 at 5:21 PM

I typed that paper right after it happened. Just ask one question “why was Amb. Stevens in Benghazi on the anniv. of Sept. 11?” The answer lies within and all who should know it, from Obama on down.

Schadenfreude on May 7, 2013 at 5:28 PM

verb, you proved to be a real dummy in this thread, for shame. It’s expected of sesqu, but not from you.

Schadenfreude on May 7, 2013 at 5:08 PM

Well, sorry you feel that way.
I don’t think it’s too much to ask that folks draw conclusions from facts…and not speculation.
You sip, if not always drink, from the same poisoned well, so no surprise that you don’t welcome any challenge to the conspiracies…or any request for actual facts.
Your harlots are on a roll…in the mud.
What’s really a shame is that any genuine investigation into what went wrong and resulted in the tragic deaths over there is thwarted to make room for one of Issa’s circuses.
Send in the clowns…

verbaluce on May 7, 2013 at 5:29 PM

Heck, if the CIA is that dishonest and willing to bend over for politicians in office, why didn’t Hillary ask the CIA to blame Bush????

fred5678 on May 7, 2013 at 5:15 PM

The CIA of today s/b renamed to CYA. They are full of lawyers and prima donnas, in Obama’s derriere.

Brennan “Islam is just a tenet of muslimism”. He might have converted already.

No, you should NOT trust the CIA of today.

Schadenfreude on May 7, 2013 at 5:31 PM

OBAMA: Secretary Clinton has done an extraordinary job. But she works for me. I’m the president and I’m always responsible, and that’s why nobody’s more interested in finding out exactly what happened than I do.
The day after the attack, governor, I stood in the Rose Garden and I told the American people in the world that we are going to find out exactly what happened. That this was an act of terror and I also said that we’re going to hunt down those who committed this crime.
And then a few days later, I was there greeting the caskets coming into Andrews Air Force Base and grieving with the families.
And the suggestion that anybody in my team, whether the Secretary of State, our U.N. Ambassador, anybody on my team would play politics or mislead when we’ve lost four of our own, governor, is offensive. That’s not what we do. That’s not what I do as president, that’s not what I do as Commander in Chief.

Hmmm….

Of course something went wrong in Benghazi…Americans died there.
And if some folks around Obama had concerns about the political angles…well sure as heck so did Mitt Romney. And so did the GOP, DNC, Karl Rove, James Carville, etc.
But to extrapolate from that all this murderous and nefarious malice and conspiracy and heartless motivations…it’s just drama-queening.
verbaluce on May 7, 2013 at 3:59 PM

Verbulace, please report yourself to attackwatch.

can_con on May 7, 2013 at 5:31 PM

verbaluce on May 7, 2013 at 2:08 PM

Check your temperature.

Schadenfreude on May 7, 2013 at 4:39 PM

Verbal gets all hot and bothered by his work attire: http://tinyurl.com/cj6te2d

slickwillie2001 on May 7, 2013 at 5:32 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3