Document dump: White House releases 100 pages of Benghazi e-mails

posted at 8:01 pm on May 15, 2013 by Allahpundit

Jake Tapper has all of them in PDF form. Click the link and let’s start crowdsourcing. This one’s the standout so far:

aq

“FBI says AQ (not AQIM) was involved and they are pursuing that theory.” AQIM is “Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb,” a.k.a. the group’s north African offshoot. The FBI evidently had reason to believe — and still does — that members of Al Qaeda from outside the region were involved in the attack. That didn’t make it into the final version of the talking points on September 14.

Via John Nolte and Stephen Hayes, another one. Remember when Jay Carney said in November that a “single adjustment” had been made to the initial talking points? Nope:

tp2

“Major reservations.” The very next e-mail (page 46), addressed to State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland, says that the FBI had no major concerns with the talking points. It was State who objected — specifically to the paragraph in the original talking points noting that the CIA had warned of jihadi activity before, a fact already reported by Hayes in the Weekly Standard:

nu1

Here, a bit later in the evening (page 63), is the CIA’s big scrub in response to Nuland’s concerns. The references to Al Qaeda and previous warnings by the CIA in paragraph four are gone:

nu2

Another State Department deputy, David Adams, complained earlier in the evening (page 40) that that fourth paragraph “will read to members like we had been repeatedly warned.” But they had been repeatedly warned: That was the whole point of the initial Benghazi testimony last year from Eric Nordstrom, culminating in his claim that the “Taliban is on the inside of the building” at State because they wouldn’t listen to repeated requests for more security. On the day he died, Stevens sent a cable to State emphasizing his concerns about “growing problems with security” in Benghazi. O’s critics have chased a thousand different strands of this story, but that remains the most egregious element of it. State’s diplomatic team in Libya begged them for more security and were refused. And after it was over, Nuland and Adams fretted that the public might conclude they hadn’t done enough to protect their troops if the talking points were left as is. Heaven forbid.

When push comes to shove, I think Dave Weigel’s right about tonight’s document dump. It doesn’t tell us much that Steve Hayes hadn’t already told us. The biggest point in the administration’s favor remains the fact that, from the beginning, the CIA itself erroneously thought the attack was the product of a spontaneous protest — which, of course, doesn’t justify the scrubbing of the rest of the document at State’s behest. Just one note in parting, though: Why do the e-mails start on September 14? There’d been three days of government verbiage, some of it blaming the Mohammed video, before this. When do we get those e-mails?

Update: Ace is needling me on Twitter for assuming that the “spontaneous protest” talking point was part of the CIA’s assessment from the very beginning when we’re still missing three days of interagency communications to confirm that. Fair enough.


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

Nothing happened between 9/11 and 9/13.

Cindy Munford on May 15, 2013 at 8:50 PM

Yup.
Nothing happened and we have fingerprints to prove that nothing happened .

God this POTUS has no shame !

burrata on May 15, 2013 at 9:09 PM

pg 59 dated 9/14/2012

CIA indicates involvement of several agencies cleared by WH in messaging talking points. State concerned by it. FBI cleared but wants to involve Justice.

NYT Schmitt calls with readout of session leaked by Rep. Ruppersberger

workingclass artist on May 15, 2013 at 9:09 PM

To be a fly on the wall in the Clinton house tonight.

“How the hell did we let this fool beat us and then drag you down with him hon?”

APACHEWHOKNOWS on May 15, 2013 at 9:10 PM

Obama has kept his promise of having a transparent administration.

nonpartisan on May 15, 2013 at 8:03 PM

So, he’s dropping Executive Privilege on the Fast & Furious documents?

Didn’t think so.

Resist We Much on May 15, 2013 at 9:10 PM

What kind of leak is there that the DOJ needs to be able to get phone records from AP journalists and the House of Representatives without either Obama or Holder knowing about it?

ninjapirate on May 15, 2013 at 9:06 PM

The bigger question is, given the supposed grave risk to the American public, how was Obama not informed? surely this risk would have hit his PDB?

can_con on May 15, 2013 at 9:11 PM

I was hoping there would be some pics of Hussein and his honchos looking at a live feed from Benghazi, Hussein in his mighty high-chair, Killery shreiking with delight, some underlings from Pantygone in crisp uniforms, all huddled in the Situation Room ……what happened ?

burrata on May 15, 2013 at 8:14 PM

Do you remember when Qaddafi was taken out that Hillary was cackling, “We came, we saw, he died”? That piece of international diplomacy has to go down in the history of potential presidential material, right?

onlineanalyst on May 15, 2013 at 9:12 PM

Makes some keep looking behind watching for an ambush from this one.

He may be up to real bad things and this is just noise to distract U.S. all.

Can not be trusted at all.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on May 15, 2013 at 9:14 PM

pg 69-72 talk about spontaneous demonstrations.

Ben Rhodes and Matthew Olsen

workingclass artist on May 15, 2013 at 9:16 PM

APACHEWHOKNOWS on May 15, 2013 at 9:05 PM
Yup! and it’s uncontrollable.(popcorn……must get….mmmmmmm.)

flackcatcher on May 15, 2013 at 9:18 PM

Somewhere, probably Bethesda Hospital there’s a spook that got hurt bad, and who is pissed off at being left for dead.

Payback on his mind.

wolly4321 on May 15, 2013 at 9:22 PM

“We came, we saw, he died”? That piece of international diplomacy has to go down in the history of potential presidential material, right?

onlineanalyst on May 15, 2013 at 9:12 PM

and then she topped her presidential cred by appearing on Paki TV to slam an American individual for bringing out the worst in muzies !!
Well, what difference does it make ? Those 4 dead were just bumps on the road

burrata on May 15, 2013 at 9:23 PM

can_con on May 15, 2013 at 8:21 PM

Egzactly can_con.
No surprise that the correspondence running up to, and three days after, September 11, 2012 is what we may never see. I’m eager for this promised ‘other shoe to drop.’
Drat, I was craving popcorn tonight.

egmont on May 15, 2013 at 9:25 PM

AP – Do you even recall what the accusation (at least the rational one) has been here…that the WH, for political reasons, in an election year, controlled and managed these talking points.
You know…super sinister sh*t.
Now you can dig through and infer and interpret all you want here, but at what point will you (and others) admit you have nothing but the wild theories?
You can edit out bits of Nuland here and there, adjust contexts, etc. – but even then at best (worst?) you’re left with some agency turf battles. But then there’s also all these fine Americans working hard towards real answers and real intelligence, understanding that they are in the early stages of an investigation and don’t have either yet. So what’s the ‘elect Obama plot’ they’re all in on again?
Even with out IRS and DOJ/AP sucking up some of the oxygen in the room, are we not now at the fizzle out stage of this b.s.?

verbaluce on May 15, 2013 at 9:26 PM

“We came, we saw, he died”? That piece of international diplomacy has to go down in the history of potential presidential material, right?

onlineanalyst on May 15, 2013 at 9:12 PM

and then she topped her presidential cred by appearing on Paki TV to slam an American individual for bringing out the worst in muzies !!
Well, what difference does it make ? Those 4 dead were just bumps on the road

burrata on May 15, 2013 at 9:23 PM

Yep, as long as she is wearing pearls and a “concerned” look on her face, everything is hunky dory.

Was “bump in the road” an Obysmal remark on Letterman’s program? You know, the place where real news occurs.

onlineanalyst on May 15, 2013 at 9:27 PM

What we don’t know(yet), is who was in the decision chain that night. There have been some hints, but how it relates to the Benghazi time frame is not. That the White House, and those in the NCA,(both civilian and military) are working to obscure their involvement, points to something very big, and very nasty.

flackcatcher on May 15, 2013 at 9:28 PM

pg. 84 9/15

Here’s where we are after tweaks from Ben and Jake.

pg. 88 9/15

Says State not wanting any previous security warnings mentioned “and other work done on this” in talking points.

pg 94 9/15

Talking points sent to Susan Rice for Sunday talk shows. Morell on SVTS identified as editing heavily.

Jake Sullivan and Ben Rhodes names as coordinating with small group intellegence on talking points before sunday talk shows.

pg 100

Ben Rhodes lists people in the loop

workingclass artist on May 15, 2013 at 9:30 PM

verbaluce on May 15, 2013 at 9:26 PM

Look, bozo, Obysmal’s whole claim to fame was that he single-handedly took out binLaden and that “al Qaeda was on the run.” Qadaffi had repeatedly warned that east Libya was rife with jihadist al Qaeda sympathizers and that he (Qadaffi)was keeping the lid on them. Obysmal’s Libyan adventure opened a can of worms and empowered jihadist ambitions. The attack on the compound in Benghazi had to be downplayed for the Obysmal narrative to work in his favor.

onlineanalyst on May 15, 2013 at 9:34 PM

And Obysmal went to bed that night, saying “What? Me worry? Take care of it guys.”

onlineanalyst on May 15, 2013 at 9:37 PM

Now you can dig through and infer and interpret all you want here, but at what point will you (and others) admit you have nothing but the wild theories?You can edit out bits of Nuland here and there, adjust contexts, etc. – but even then at best (worst?) you’re left with some agency turf battles.
verbaluce on May 15, 2013 at 9:26 PM

All we have is a few emails from 9/14. Let’s wait until we see the correspondence from the three days prior before you make this ginormous assumption, shall we?

egmont on May 15, 2013 at 9:37 PM

Verb- no. And we aren’t with f&f either.

Mothers of the dead want answers.

That this cabal is slick as eel shit at hiding what they did doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. We all know it did.

wolly4321 on May 15, 2013 at 9:38 PM

verbaluce on May 15, 2013 at 9:26 PM

You have the Muslim Youtube video dude in jail.

Cindy Munford on May 15, 2013 at 9:41 PM

onlineanalyst on May 15, 2013 at 9:34 PM

Sure, the ‘Obama should have sided with and helped Qadaffi’ angle.
I’ll sit this one out.
(But points for making up your very own name for ‘Obama’.)

verbaluce on May 15, 2013 at 9:42 PM

Obama has kept his promise of having a transparent administration.

noforeskin on May 15, 2013 at 8:03 PM

…no brain…or d!ck…!

KOOLAID2 on May 15, 2013 at 9:44 PM

Was “bump in the road” an Obysmal remark on Letterman’s program? You know, the place where real news occurs.

onlineanalyst on May 15, 2013 at 9:27 PM

Then Hussein delivered another whopper in another news show on Comedy Central when he said that 4 nAmerican deaths are not optimal.
I wonder where he gets this cold cruel ruthlessless from ?

burrata on May 15, 2013 at 9:45 PM

Update: for those who want a real downloadable pdf of the e-mails, you can get one here via ABC News.

Dusty on May 15, 2013 at 9:45 PM

“wild theories” that ended in Flag drapped coffins, with the people that caused it lying to the face of the families,,, on the tarmac.

Go eff yourself.

It was a video, right?

wolly4321 on May 15, 2013 at 9:46 PM

verbaluce on May 15, 2013 at 9:26 PM

You have the Muslim Youtube video dude in jail.

Cindy Munford on May 15, 2013 at 9:41 PM

…that’s good with verbadunce…he gets conjugal visitation rights!

KOOLAID2 on May 15, 2013 at 9:46 PM

All we have is a few emails from 9/14. Let’s wait until we see the correspondence from the three days prior before you make this ginormous assumption, shall we?

egmont on May 15, 2013 at 9:37 PM

‘All we have’?
The constant drumbeat to see this email or that email. And all that happens when it’s produced, is a pivot to another email or doc that will surely provide the ‘answers’.

You seriously suggest that if whatever these three days before emails are provided and (again) offer no support for all these theories…that then you/other will just say Ooooohhhh…ok. Got it now. Thanks.’

verbaluce on May 15, 2013 at 9:49 PM

I hope ppl here can give some credit when its due.

noforeskin on May 15, 2013 at 8:03 PM

…alright!…YOU… give ok Head !

KOOLAID2 on May 15, 2013 at 9:51 PM

[verbaluce on May 15, 2013 at 9:26 PM]

Worrying about what critics might say or how they might use the evidence based factual information in talking points is not agency turf battles.

It’s paranoid politicians worrying about their political futures, which was heightened by the inconvenience of needing to maintain a political narrative on the cusp of an upcoming Presidential election.

Dusty on May 15, 2013 at 9:51 PM

verbaluce on May 15, 2013 at 9:26 PM

So you are not the least bit interested in how we got from denied security, denied help to Amb. Rice’s performances on the Sunday shows? Our four dead are just collateral damage? But Obama is going to bring their killers to justice. When?

Cindy Munford on May 15, 2013 at 9:52 PM

“wild theories” that ended in Flag drapped coffins, with the people that caused it lying to the face of the families,,, on the tarmac.

Go eff yourself.

It was a video, right?

wolly4321 on May 15, 2013 at 9:46 PM

Go eff your exploitative self.
You got your flag wrapped too tight.

verbaluce on May 15, 2013 at 9:55 PM

You seriously suggest that if whatever these three days before emails are provided and (again) offer no support for all these theories…that then you/other will just say Ooooohhhh…ok. Got it now. Thanks.’

verbaluce on May 15, 2013 at 9:49 PM

So lets compromise.
Instead of releasing all the e-mails and other communications between 9/11/12 and 9/14/12,
just release the name of the person who received the Ambassador’s calls for help
and
actual transcript of the order to stand- down , time stamped

burrata on May 15, 2013 at 9:56 PM

Jesus Christ. What’d they scan these off of, a 1980′s fax machine? These’ve got to be the worst scans I’ve seen in 20 years.

My bet is that they’re intentionally sh*tty quality, to make it harder to run them through OCR and simplify the analysis.

nukemhill on May 15, 2013 at 9:57 PM

Why do the e-mails start on September 14? There’d been three days of government verbiage, some of it blaming the Mohammed video, before this. When do we get those e-mails?

Update: Ace is needling me on Twitter for assuming that the “spontaneous protest” talking point was part of the CIA’s assessment from the very beginning when we’re still missing three days of interagency communications to confirm that. Fair enough.

That’s what I’ve been wondering. These were created after Obama blamed the video in his initial statement, in the Rose Garden, in Vegas, in front of the coffins, to the families of those killed. for three days.

Were these talking points created to fit a story already being told/concocted elsewhere? Hicks, the FBI and others say it was a known terrorist attack by Al Qaeda on day one. So, who told the POTUS and Hillary to blame it on the video for the first three days…?

sarainitaly on May 15, 2013 at 9:58 PM

verbaluce on May 15, 2013 at 9:49 PM

So why aren’t those emails with these released today?

Cindy Munford on May 15, 2013 at 10:00 PM

What kind of leak is there that the DOJ needs to be able to get phone records from AP journalists and the House of Representatives without either Obama or Holder knowing about it?

ninjapirate on May 15, 2013 at 9:06 PM

Thinking about this some more there can only be a few scenarios. DOJ came across a legitimate risk and it did not make it to the white house. Fire Holder

DOJ came across a grave security risk, told Obama and both are lying now. Fire Holder/impeach Obama

DOJ came across a legitimate securiy risk, and the risk was in the Whitehouse and possibly implicates Obama or a close advisor so Obama wasn’t told. Fire ad Jail Holder/impeach Obama/or jail Obama advisor.

can_con on May 15, 2013 at 10:00 PM

Sure, the ‘Obama should have sided with and helped Qadaffi’ angle.
I’ll sit this one out.
(But points for making up your very own name for ‘Obama’.)

verbaluce on May 15, 2013 at 9:42 PM

No, Obama should have stayed out of Libya. PERIOD.

For many reasons, but this is a big one:

Syria, ‘Red-Lines,’ and Obama’s Feckless Foreign Policy

And, speaking of siding with thugs…

Remember when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called Bashar Assad a ‘reformer’?

Remember when Maerose Prizzi made her pilgrimage and said ‘We come in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace’?

How about John François Kerry’s visit to Damascus where he said: ‘Let me just say that I am . . . absolutely convinced that carefully calibrated diplomacy, that if that is what we engage in, that Syria will play a very important role in achieving a comprehensive peace in the region and in putting an end to the five decades of conflict that have plagued everybody in this region. That’s our hope, that’s our challenge, and we’re committed to continue to work at it’?

Resist We Much on May 15, 2013 at 10:01 PM

verbaluce on May 15, 2013 at 9:26 PM

So you are not the least bit interested in how we got from denied security, denied help to Amb. Rice’s performances on the Sunday shows? Our four dead are just collateral damage? But Obama is going to bring their killers to justice. When?

Cindy Munford on May 15, 2013 at 9:52 PM

I am fully concerned that these guys found themselves in that level of danger and that there wasn’t sufficient (obviously) protection present or nearby.
So you think maybe Issa and co could move on to addressing and working on that?
We still have people out there serving. I bet they’d welcome a shift in focus here.

verbaluce on May 15, 2013 at 10:02 PM

Go eff your exploitative self.
You got your flag wrapped too tight.

verbaluce on May 15, 2013 at 9:55 PM

Go tell Sean Smith’s mum and Ty Woods’ father to eff themselves. They want answers. They were told by Obama, Biden, Panetta, and Clinton – PERSONALLY AND TO THEIR FACES – that the video was to blame.

Resist We Much on May 15, 2013 at 10:03 PM

So you think maybe Issa and co could move on to addressing and working on that?
We still have people out there serving. I bet they’d welcome a shift in focus here.

verbaluce on May 15, 2013 at 10:02 PM

Why is it Issa’s job to dig for the truth ?
Why can’t Hussein stop lying and speak the truth , for a change ?

burrata on May 15, 2013 at 10:06 PM

Resist We Much on May 15, 2013 at 10:01 PM

We digress.
But Obama came into office with just a slight US FP engagement with the Arab world already ongoing.
But maybe you feel it was all going swimmingly up ’til then.

verbaluce on May 15, 2013 at 10:07 PM

onlineanalyst on May 15, 2013 at 9:34 PM

Sure, the ‘Obama should have sided with and helped Qadaffi’ angle.
I’ll sit this one out.

verbaluce on May 15, 2013 at 9:42 PM

No, darlin’. Obysmal should have sat out the whole Libyan adventure. He had no business inserting himself into that mess, from “behind” or elsewhere, just as he should stay out of the Syrian mess. Obysmal has been backing the expanding caliphate ever since Egypt. He can’t help but protect his “Muslim brothers,” as he himself put it.

onlineanalyst on May 15, 2013 at 10:10 PM

Resist We Much on May 15, 2013 at 10:03 PM

Wouldn’t expect the cheap ‘go tell that to the families’ line from you.
None of you own any greater concern…nor do I accuse you of having any less.
(And for the record, I call out Obama for using the same cheap shot this week…when he said these questions ‘dishonor those who died’.)

verbaluce on May 15, 2013 at 10:11 PM

So you think maybe Issa and co could move on to addressing and working on that?
We still have people out there serving. I bet they’d welcome a shift in focus here.

verbaluce on May 15, 2013 at 10:02 PM

Riiiight, it’s all Issa’s fault ‘cuz, like, the administration has been so forthcoming up until now.

‘Those talking points originated from the intelligence community. They reflect the IC’s best assessments of what they thought had happened. The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two institutions were changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility’ because ‘consulate’ was inaccurate.’

- Jay Carney, 28 November 2012

Resist We Much on May 15, 2013 at 10:11 PM

We digress.
But Obama came into office with just a slight US FP engagement with the Arab world already ongoing.
But maybe you feel it was all going swimmingly up ’til then.

verbaluce on May 15, 2013 at 10:07 PM

Perhaps the least we could expect from our chief executive is to not make things worse. In terms of Obama’s performance what happened before is irrelevant.

NotCoach on May 15, 2013 at 10:12 PM

verbaluce on May 15, 2013 at 10:02 PM

Sure. Why was State using locals for security? The answer has nothing to do with resources. At least not in terms of not enough resources. And why was a stand-down order given? Sequester?

NotCoach on May 15, 2013 at 10:14 PM

Perhaps the least we could expect from our chief executive is to not make things worse. In terms of Obama’s performance what happened before is irrelevant.

NotCoach on May 15, 2013 at 10:12 PM

Well, we agree on that!
(But likely not with Bush at the same place in that equation.)

verbaluce on May 15, 2013 at 10:17 PM

Only an idiot would not realize that the spin on the story to blame it on the video was done to help Obama in the election. Just how gullible are you verbal?

CW on May 15, 2013 at 10:18 PM

verbaluce on May 15, 2013 at 10:02 PM

Sure. Why was State using locals for security? The answer has nothing to do with resources. At least not in terms of not enough resources. And why was a stand-down order given? Sequester?

NotCoach on May 15, 2013 at 10:14 PM

Well, yes indeed…those are the proper questions to be focused on.(sans your inferred conclusions).

verbaluce on May 15, 2013 at 10:19 PM

So how long did Hussein’s
” My pet goat” moment last ?

burrata on May 15, 2013 at 10:20 PM

It is obvious that when it comes to funding, Obama has no problem prioritizing spending in a manner that will cause pain. In this case people died.

CW on May 15, 2013 at 10:21 PM

So how is Vegas in September? We usually go in June when we have a wedding to attend in Cali.

CW on May 15, 2013 at 10:22 PM

verbaluce on May 15, 2013 at 10:02 PM

I am all for fixing the problems but I don’t understand how ignoring how we got there is helpful. Why in the world was Amb. Stevens even there? Heightened security on the day of all days should have been S.O.S.. I’m more than a touch worried that Obama believes his own press and that he believe Al Qaeda to be decimated.

Cindy Munford on May 15, 2013 at 10:23 PM

And Charleen Lamb’s testimony much earlier on said that funding was not the issue.

onlineanalyst on May 15, 2013 at 10:24 PM

Yes indeed, my flag is wrapped tight. I don’t stomp on it like ayers.

You think that’s a fault?

You have no problem with how this went down?

Seriously, I’m curious.

I watched barky and hitlery when those caskets were in the 4 backed up hearses, and as God is my witness it was all I could do not to throw up.

You keep wanting to pretend it was nothing. Like a mistake on filling out some gubmint form.

I wasn’t a SEAL. But I knew plenty of them. Helped them launch off my platform. Set up audio/visual in the wardroom for debriefs. Launched ribs.

Drank beer in VA beach.

Yea, my flag is wrapped tight, but when it’s in a triangle, it bothers me.

It’s not even remotely funny that this potus is inept enough to waste thier lives.

wolly4321 on May 15, 2013 at 10:25 PM

Go tell Sean Smith’s mum and Ty Woods’ father to eff themselves. They want answers. They were told by Obama, Biden, Panetta, and Clinton – PERSONALLY AND TO THEIR FACES – that the video was to blame.
Resist We Much on May 15, 2013 at 10:03 PM

Oh ease up with your righteousness, RWM. YOU couldn’t care less about those people’s parents. You want political defeat, not a reckoning for the sake of the families.

It’s fake to back up to a position where “it’s for their sake!!” when it’s totally for yours that you care.

I told you all in short order of a second term you’d find Obama with a more adversarial media and that they’d slowly start getting torn apart though. It’s enjoyable being right sometimes.

:)

Genuine on May 15, 2013 at 10:26 PM

So you think maybe Issa and co could move on to addressing and working on that?
We still have people out there serving. I bet they’d welcome a shift in focus here.

verbaluce on May 15, 2013 at 10:02 PM

Riiiight, it’s all Issa’s fault ‘cuz, like, the administration has been so forthcoming up until now.

Resist We Much on May 15, 2013 at 10:11 PM

Issa’s irrelevant, sadly, on that.
There’s no role for him if/when we ever get to substantive oversight on this. He’s Dan Burton all over again.
Will be shooting at watermelons before this all done.

verbaluce on May 15, 2013 at 10:27 PM

verbaluce on May 15, 2013 at 10:11 PM

Please, if Obama thought the families of the dead could help him, he would have them by his side. Sandy Hook.

Cindy Munford on May 15, 2013 at 10:28 PM

You have no problem with how this went down?

Seriously, I’m curious.

wolly4321 on May 15, 2013 at 10:25 PM

Of COURSE I do.
I’ve offered that enough times here.
Thanks for your service. It’s what allows me to tell you when you’re being a self righteous pr*ck.
Which I am sure you’re not always.

verbaluce on May 15, 2013 at 10:33 PM

verbaluce on May 15, 2013 at 9:49 PM

Calm down.
All we’re asking is for a full accounting of the correspondence. Whether they provide ‘answers’ is not for you to prognisticate. But go ahead, since that is what you are wont to do.

egmont on May 15, 2013 at 10:35 PM

Genuine on May 15, 2013 at 10:26 PM

Several points about the families. I don’t think any loved one deserves to see the photos of Amb. Stevens being carried by a mod. I realize there are differing stories about said mobs intentions, it was still hard to see. Those same families were told right out loud that that video was the cause and it was a flat out lie. Lastly, The Won doesn’t know a moments hesitation to trot out family members of Sandy Hook or Gabby Giffords to make a political point. And while we are all getting excited that these email do or don’t prove various points, we seem to be discounting the whistleblowers who testified just last week. They were there and I am sure they are worried about their working families still deployed.

Cindy Munford on May 15, 2013 at 10:36 PM

Stevens was there running guns. He had Turkey for dinner.

All this was going on and barky knew nothing. CIA is a independant agency, just like the IRS.

wolly4321 on May 15, 2013 at 10:37 PM

verbaluce on May 15, 2013 at 10:11 PM

Please, if Obama thought the families of the dead could help him, he would have them by his side. Sandy Hook.

Cindy Munford on May 15, 2013 at 10:28 PM

This just a line.
I’m not going to try and move you off your own talking points.
Regardless, we digress.

verbaluce on May 15, 2013 at 10:38 PM

verbaluce on May 15, 2013 at 10:33 PM

You may find this hard to believe but I don’t think this situation is an impeachable offense, I just think it is incompetence. And I worry about setting ourselves up for another 9/11/01 attack.

Cindy Munford on May 15, 2013 at 10:39 PM

Please, if Obama thought the families of the dead could help him, he would have them by his side. Sandy Hook.

Cindy Munford on May 15, 2013 at 10:28 PM

In a New York minute.

CW on May 15, 2013 at 10:42 PM

Please, if Obama thought the families of the dead could help him, he would have them by his side. Sandy Hook.

Cindy Munford on May 15, 2013 at 10:28 PM

Obama campaigns with surviving family members if it benefits him,
and campaigns with coffins of dead Americans if it benefits him.
It’s always about campaigning with him and it’s always about him .

burrata on May 15, 2013 at 10:43 PM

verbaluce on May 15, 2013 at 10:38 PM

I have talking points? What do you have, willful ignorance?

Cindy Munford on May 15, 2013 at 10:45 PM

verbaluce on May 15, 2013 at 9:49 PM

Calm down.
All we’re asking is for a full accounting of the correspondence. Whether they provide ‘answers’ is not for you to prognisticate. But go ahead, since that is what you are wont to do.

egmont on May 15, 2013 at 10:35 PM

I’m pretty calm, but thanks.
I don’t see that the emails will be accepted as a ‘full accounting’ – but noted that you’ll see that as such.

verbaluce on May 15, 2013 at 10:47 PM

have talking points? What do you have, willful ignorance?

Cindy Munford on May 15, 2013 at 10:45 PM

In other words he had nothing.

CW on May 15, 2013 at 10:48 PM

but noted that you’ll see that as such.

verbaluce on May 15, 2013 at 10:47 PM

Huh? Where did you read that?

egmont on May 15, 2013 at 10:49 PM

Gotta give the WH credit, they’re giving their critics what they want (this doc release plus Obama’s quick firing of the IRS head). Obama has kept his promise of having a transparent administration.

I hope ppl here can give some credit when its due.

nonpartisan on May 15, 2013 at 8:03 PM

he was leaving in 2-3 weeks anyways.
transparent?
you are so stupid it is criminal.
run away screaming now little kid.
let the adults fix your damned mess.

dmacleo on May 15, 2013 at 10:49 PM

verbaluce on May 15, 2013 at 10:38 PM

I have talking points? What do you have, willful ignorance?

Cindy Munford on May 15, 2013 at 10:45 PM

And you have forgone conclusions.
And this is about a lot more for you…well then what it’s supposed to be about.
There is only one guy (or as you say ‘won’ guy) who you desire to be deemed culpable and responsible for any and all.

verbaluce on May 15, 2013 at 10:52 PM

Nixon broke in to an office.

We’ll, actually, no he didn’t.

Bloody hand prints? No.

you know damned well what this is, verb.

It’s the dishonesty that makes me hate your kind.

wolly4321 on May 15, 2013 at 10:52 PM

Where did you read that?

egmont on May 15, 2013 at 10:49 PM

Your ‘all we’re asking’ line.
Man…that didn’t last long.

verbaluce on May 15, 2013 at 10:53 PM

Nixon broke in to an office.

We’ll, actually, no he didn’t.

Bloody hand prints? No.

you know damned well what this is, verb.

It’s the dishonesty that makes me hate your kind.

wolly4321 on May 15, 2013 at 10:52 PM

It’s the absurd references to Nixon/Watergate that make me dismiss your arguments.
(And why doesn’t ‘Iran/Contra’ get used as the ‘just like’? Hmm.)

verbaluce on May 15, 2013 at 10:58 PM

verbaluce on May 15, 2013 at 10:52 PM

Actually I think this might hurt Hillary more than Obama. Sorry they lied, they could have saved you a lot of heartache.

Cindy Munford on May 15, 2013 at 10:58 PM

verbaluce on May 15, 2013 at 10:53 PM

Your willful limiting of context is flipping annoying. No wonder people here tire of you.
Toodles.

egmont on May 15, 2013 at 10:59 PM

verbaluce on May 15, 2013 at 10:58 PM

IranContra is an excellent point of how two very odd things are put together for a means to an end. You don’t think Republicans have the corner on that monopoly do you?

Cindy Munford on May 15, 2013 at 11:00 PM

The forgone conclusion is 4 dead bodies and many other injured and lame excuses as to why.
Who is culpable? Maybe the dude that put us in Libya without Congressional approval.

You see, booooosh didn’t go in to Libya. Barky did.

They are dead because of decisions he either made, or didn’t make.

Either way, they are dead.

wolly4321 on May 15, 2013 at 11:04 PM

verbaluce on May 15, 2013 at 10:53 PM

Your willful limiting of context is flipping annoying. No wonder people here tire of you.
Toodles.

egmont on May 15, 2013 at 10:59 PM

A bit of a cheap whine there.
I was granting the benefit of the doubt – that you meant what you said. Apologies if you feel misread.
Sorry you feel the need to take your gaul and go home.

verbaluce on May 15, 2013 at 11:08 PM

Either way, they are dead.

wolly4321 on May 15, 2013 at 11:04 PM

Tragically true, and perhaps all we’ll agree on tonight.

verbaluce on May 15, 2013 at 11:10 PM

I’m willing to accept the Iran-Contra analogy.

How many embassy officials were sodomized and murdered?

How did the media react?

See the point?

wolly4321 on May 15, 2013 at 11:13 PM

blink on May 15, 2013 at 11:34 PM

Just think back to Abu Ghraib. I bet verbaluce preached keeping perspective back then also./

Cindy Munford on May 16, 2013 at 12:22 AM

Not sure if this has been mentioned on this threat but the first 67 hours of email are missing from this dump.

iceman1960 on May 16, 2013 at 7:30 AM

Thread that is.

iceman1960 on May 16, 2013 at 7:31 AM

The first 67 hours of email are missing… so much for transparency.

iceman1960 on May 16, 2013 at 7:34 AM

ERIC HOLDER TO MEDIA, AMERICA:
“Hey America, FU@& YOU – The only way anyone in this administration is going to jail or be punished any other way for any of these scandals, which include broken laws, is if I appoint an independent counsel to investigate – I ain’t doin’ it & there’s no way in H#LL anyone can make me! Hahahahahaha!

To rub salt in the wounds of outraged America, Obama announced the IRS Scandal is for all intents & purposes over because he has taken swift, strict action BY ALLOWING THE HEAD OF THE IRS TO STEP DOWN/RETIRE…LIKE HE WAS GOING TO DO ANYWAY (LIKE hILLARY ALREADY DID)!

And in regards to Benghazi, not only was no one fired, but it is being reported that RICE IS GOING TO BE PROMOTED after lying her arse off & the #2 Diplomat in Libya got demoted & given a lowly desk job for questioning Rice’s & this administration’s lies about Benghazi!

Obama/Holer’s Final Message on the Scandals:

“$u@K It, America! Forward…”

easyt65 on May 16, 2013 at 7:58 AM

We are also taking the WH’s word for it on who the emails are to/from.

Note the to/from is redacted (which is probably a legitimate redaction), but unless we can separately verify, we have to take the WH’s word on who created the message, who received the message and who responded to the message.

It would be very easy to change the context of the messages (i.e., who was pushing for certain redaction or word changes) by changing up the to/from (if they were ever caught, they could say simple transcription error).

Obviously, as other people have pointed out, we don’t have the other days of emails and we also don’t know if this constitutes all of the emails.

It would not surprise me in the least to learn that this is not all of the emails and that there are “errors” in the to/from lines.

Obviously, the WH is trying to produce just enough to say “nothing to see here” and let the journalists say “they released everything, there was nothing to see” and get the media to move on.

It would also not surprise me for this tactic to work. The media has not wanted to cover Benghazi and is still looking for any way to get rid of this story.

Monkeytoe on May 16, 2013 at 8:51 AM

Document Dump? If anyone thinks 100 pages is a “document dump,” they need to refer back to the days of Bill “U-Hall” Clinton. Make it 100 boxes and you’re getting a little warmer.

Tomolena1 on May 16, 2013 at 9:57 AM

Re: Resist We Much on May 15, 2013 at 9:08 PM
>
Thankyou RWM. That certainly IS the most definitive Benghazi timeline I’ve seen sofar. It’s very easy to get lost in the “when’s and where’s” without something like this.

Tomolena1 on May 16, 2013 at 10:05 AM

Notice on page 92 the e-mail is to Susan Rice. In the Subject line is the first mention of “Movie Protest/Violence”. The e-mail itself is an empty page.

Xyz22 on May 16, 2013 at 10:14 AM

Nothing happened between 9/11 and 9/13.

Cindy Munford on May 15, 2013 at 8:50 PM

Yup.
Nothing happened and we have fingerprints to prove that nothing happened .

God this POTUS has no shame !

burrata on May 15, 2013 at 9:09 PM

Hey, Nixon had his missing 18 minutes. Obama has his two missing days.

RedNewEnglander on May 16, 2013 at 1:39 PM

Comment pages: 1 2