Benghazi scandal tied to White House


Goober
#1
Benghazi scandal tied to White House

Benghazi scandal tied to White House (external - login to view)

[The documents] include a newly declassified e-mail showing then-White House Deputy Strategic Communications Adviser Ben Rhodes and other Obama administration public relations officials attempting to orchestrate a campaign to “reinforce” President Obama and to portray the Benghazi consulate terrorist attack as being “rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.” Other documents show that State Department officials initially described the incident as an “attack” and possible kidnap attempt.

In addition a document showed Susan Rice was informed before her TV appearance: “Responding to a question about whether it was an organized terror attack, Toria said that she couldn’t speak to the identity of the perpetrators but that it was clearly a complex attack.” Toria refers to Victoria Nuland, then State Department spokeswoman and now assistant secretary for Europe and Eurasia. She had been unfairly maligned in some quarters and falsely accused of participating in the illicit editing of the talking points. These documents exonerate her entirely, pointing the finger directly at the White House and the CIA. (It is noteworthy that in the days between the attack and Rice’s TV outing, Nuland never tied the video to the attack; Carney did, most clearly on Sept. 14.) With regard to the CIA:

The Judicial Watch documents confirm that CIA talking points, that were prepared for Congress and may have been used by Rice on “Face the Nation” and four additional Sunday talk shows on September 16, had been heavily edited by then-CIA deputy director Mike Morell. According to one email
www.judicialwatch.org/wp-cont...14.pdf#page=21 (external - login to view)

The first draft apparently seemed unsuitable….because they seemed to encourage the reader to infer incorrectly that the CIA had warned about a specific attack on our embassy. On the SVTS, Morell noted that these points were not good and he had taken a heavy hand to editing them. He noted that he would be happy to work with [then deputy chief of staff to Hillary Clinton]] Jake Sullivan and Rhodes to develop appropriate talking points.

The e-mails were exchanged at a time when the State Department and CIA already knew that the video was not at issue and that this was a staged attack of some type. Former United Nations spokesman Richard Grenell who was briefly part of the Mitt Romney presidential team told Right Turn, “The e-mail from Ben Rhodes to a bunch of political appointees at the White House proves that there was a scramble inside Obama’s inner circle to protect him from the fallout of a U.S. Ambassador being killed on the anniversary of 9/11 and a few short weeks from his reelection.” He pointedly added: “ It’s time for real journalists to confront the President. It’s clear now that he and his team have not been truthful with the American people.”


Updated

www.theblaze.com/stories/2014...rorists-hands/ (external - login to view)

At the start of the Libyan civil war, which began as part of the Arab Spring movement, the U.S. and Europe had difficulties telling friend from foe. Al Qaeda sympathizers and extremists were directly woven into the fabric of the rebel fighters, and weapons shipments coming from the Persian Gulf into Libya landed in the hands of terrorists and other non-state actors, according to a United Nations report and several U.S. officials who spoke to TheBlaze. The 2014 U.N. report revealed that “most arsenals continue to be controlled by non-state armed groups and governing institutions have very limited capacity to control Libya’s borders, ports and airports, which contribute to the overall insecurity in the surrounding region and within Libya.”

“Information started to surface in other media about the terrorist element that was within the rebels and about how we had to be very, very careful about who we were supporting,” said Kubic, who has spent a significant time in Libya before and after the overthrow of Gadhafi. ”Even [former NATO top commander] Adm. [James] Stavridis went before the Congress and alluded to an intelligence summary that he had received that had indications … of rebels who were actually terrorists.”

It was shortly after the 2011 NATO military campaign started against then-Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi, however, that rumors began to surface that members of the rebel forces were actually linked to Al Qaeda, retired Rear Adm. Chuck Kubic told TheBlaze. Kubic is a member of the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi, a group comprised mainly of retired military officials and former intelligence officers aimed at discovering the truth of what happened the night of the attacks.


A U.S. businesswoman who had access to senior Libyan officials and provided information as a paid informant for the CIA and FBI, said she was asked to provide intelligence on various rebel leaders and their actions while she was conducting business in Libya. Speaking to TheBlaze TV’s For the Record and going only by the pseudonym Annie to protect her identity, she said the Obama administration was aware that $500 million of the $1 billion in weapons delivered in shipments from weapons dealers in the Persian Gulf were being taken by members of Al Qaeda.

Current and former U.S. officials intimately familiar with operations in Libya at the time confirmed Annie’s statement to TheBlaze.
Last edited by Goober; Apr 29th, 2014 at 05:56 PM..
 
Locutus
+1
#2
pssst...you're not supposed to talk like that.
 
captain morgan
#3
We all know that this event was the result of some kook in Cali that posted an anti-Islamist youtube video... The rest was spontaneous, including the RPGs, papamilitary style advances, etc... That's all pretty much par for the course in Benghazi
 
BaalsTears
#4
Obama got away with screwing up on Libyan policy. If he hadn't switched sides in Libya the four Americans would still be alive. However, while Obama got away with it...Hillary won't. That stupid bitch will be held to account.
 
EagleSmack
+2
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

We all know that this event was the result of some kook in Cali that posted an anti-Islamist youtube video... The rest was spontaneous, including the RPGs, papamilitary style advances, etc... That's all pretty much par for the course in Benghazi


Oddly enough the only person who did any jail time was that kook in Cali!
 
Walter
-1
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

Oddly enough the only person who did any jail time was that kook in Cali!

BHO said he'd punish those responsible and in his mind he has.
 
Locutus
#7
those 'folks' as barry would say. we'll get those 'folks' responsible.

folks
 
BaalsTears
+1
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by WalterView Post

BHO said he'd punish those responsible and in his mind he has.

Comrade Obama promised to bring the murderers to justice. It's not hard to find the killers. They gave an interview to CNN at a sidewalk cafe in Benghazi. What's holding Obama back from fulfilling his promise?
 
Locutus
#9
(external - login to view)
Kathryn Tyler ‏@ensignbay (external - login to view)



@MarkSteynOnline (external - login to view) saw clearly what happened at #Benghazi (external - login to view). His Oct 26, 2012 article:


http://tinyurl.com/8kf8wke


(external - login to view)
pic.twitter.com/rwEKwO4c88 (external - login to view)


 
Locutus
#10
DRUDGE REPORT ‏@DRUDGE_REPORT (external - login to view)

Obama Official On Benghazi: 'Dude, This Was Like Two Years Ago'...

drudge.tw/1lFJlgi (external - login to view)

NSC Spokesman On Benghazi: Dude, That Was Two Years Ago - Business Insider (external - login to view)








Mark SteynVerified account ‏@MarkSteynOnline (external - login to view)

Murderous Lies
(external - login to view)

(external - login to view)
www.steynonline.com/6308/murderous-lies … (external - login to view)
(external - login to view)

(external - login to view)
@hughhewitt (external - login to view) #Benghazi (external - login to view)
 
Locutus
+1
#11
Well. This will be interesting.


Trey Gowdy (external - login to view) tapped for select committee to investigate Benghazi.


Pitbull.



‘Excellent!’ John Boehner announces Rep. Trey Gowdy will head select committee to investigate Benghazi | Twitchy (external - login to view)
 
BornRuff
+4 / -1
#12  Top Rated Post
Where was all this right wing outrage over the 4500 people who died in Iraq?

It is incredibly disrespectful to use people's lives as pawns in a political game. It makes me really sick watching all of these idiots go on and on about this pretending that they give two ****s about the people who died when really they are just trying to stick it to Obama. If Romney or McCain were in the white house when this happened Fox news wouldn't be giving 5 minutes of airtime to it.
 
tay
+2 / -2
#13
The direct warnings to Mr. Bush about the possibility of a Qaeda attack began in the spring of 2001. By May 1, the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that “a group presently in the United States” was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be “imminent,” although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible.

But some in the administration considered the warning to be just bluster. An intelligence official and a member of the Bush administration both told me in interviews that the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon were warning the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled; according to this theory, Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat.Intelligence officials, these sources said, protested that the idea of Bin Laden, an Islamic fundamentalist, conspiring with Mr. Hussein, an Iraqi secularist, was ridiculous, but the neoconservatives’ suspicions were nevertheless carrying the day.

In response, the C.I.A. prepared an analysis that all but pleaded with the White House to accept that the danger from Bin Laden was real.

“The U.S. is not the target of a disinformation campaign by Usama Bin Laden,” the daily brief of June 29 read, using the government’s transliteration of Bin Laden’s first name. Going on for more than a page, the document recited much of the evidence, including an interview that month with a Middle Eastern journalist in which Bin Laden aides warned of a coming attack, as well as competitive pressures that the terrorist leader was feeling, given the number of Islamists being recruited for the separatist Russian region of Chechnya.


Could the 9/11 attack have been stopped, had the Bush team reacted with urgency to the warnings contained in all of those daily briefs? We can’t ever know. And that may be the most agonizing reality of all.




Throughout that summer, there were events that might have exposed the plans, had the government been on high alert. Indeed, even as the Aug. 6 brief was being prepared, Mohamed al-Kahtani, a Saudi believed to have been assigned a role in the 9/11 attacks, was stopped at an airport in Orlando, Fla., by a suspicious customs agent and sent back overseas on Aug. 4.

Two weeks later, another co-conspirator, Zacarias Moussaoui, was arrested on immigration charges in Minnesota after arousing suspicions at a flight school. But the dots were not connected, and Washington did not react.



www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/op...-warnings.html (external - login to view)
 
Walter
-1
#14
I see lots of deflection by the leftards who are defending BHO's regime.
 
BornRuff
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by WalterView Post

I see lots of deflection by the leftards who are defending BHO's regime.

Maybe you guys need a bit of self reflection. Why are you more mad over 4 deaths caused by a lack of preparedness many levels down from the white house than you are over 4500 deaths cased by lies that came directly from the white house?
 
DaSleeper
+3
#16
They not mad about the 4 deaths.....but the lies that came after....get it?
 
Walter
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by BornRuffView Post

Maybe you guys need a bit of self reflection. Why are you more mad over 4 deaths caused by a lack of preparedness many levels down from the white house than you are over 4500 deaths cased by lies that came directly from the white house?

More deflection for the half-black prez.
 
BornRuff
+1
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeperView Post

They not mad about the 4 deaths.....but the lies that came after....get it?

That is exactly what I am talking about. They are playing this up as if they care about the people who died, when really they just want to catch the administration in a "gotcha" moment.

The lies that the Bush administration told came before the 4500 deaths and lead directly to those deaths. But these same commentators defended that for some reason.

Quote: Originally Posted by WalterView Post

More deflection for the half-black prez.

Lol, not helping your case.
 
EagleSmack
#19
Yes BR... the right does not care about the deaths of our soldiers in Iraq.
 
BaalsTears
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by BornRuffView Post

Maybe you guys need a bit of self reflection. Why are you more mad over 4 deaths caused by a lack of preparedness many levels down from the white house than you are over 4500 deaths cased by lies that came directly from the white house?

There have been major consequences on the right from the Second Iraq War. The base of the conservative/libertarian movement has become isolationist. This is a profound change.

I do agree that Obama should receive the same treatment as GWB. He should be held accountable.
 
BornRuff
+2
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

Yes BR... the right does not care about the deaths of our soldiers in Iraq.

The right is pretty weak in terms of assigning blame for those deaths.

Quote: Originally Posted by BaalsTearsView Post

There have been major consequences on the right from the Second Iraq War. The base of the conservative/libertarian movement has become isolationist. This is a profound change.

I do agree that Obama should receive the same treatment as GWB. He should be held accountable.

Sure, but the reaction should be proportional to the crime. The consequences of the lies about Iraq are literally billions of times more costly, yet the right tolerated all sorts of lies to cover up the original lies and subsequent failures in order to get Bush reelected.
 
EagleSmack
+2
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by BornRuffView Post

The right is pretty weak in terms of assigning blame for those deaths.



Sure, but the reaction should be proportional to the crime. The consequences of the lies about Iraq are literally billions of times more costly, yet the right tolerated all sorts of lies to cover up the original lies and subsequent failures in order to get Bush reelected.

Lies or poor intelligence?

The Bush Administration should never have hung their hat one one reason for going into Iraq. They could have listed 100. They chose to list one because they thought there were WMDs. The Democrats agreed with the administration and voted along side of the President. So there is PLENTY of blame to go around with regards to sticking only with poor intelligence on the WMDs and making that the only reason.

They probably should have done what Obama did in Libya... give no good reason and just do it without Congressional approval.
 
BornRuff
+2
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

Lies or poor intelligence?

The Bush Administration should never have hung their hat one one reason for going into Iraq. They could have listed 100. They chose to list one because they thought there were WMDs. The Democrats agreed with the administration and voted along side of the President. So there is PLENTY of blame to go around with regards to sticking only with poor intelligence on the WMDs and making that the only reason.

They probably should have done what Obama did in Libya... give no good reason and just do it without Congressional approval.

So when the president and his top staffers personally argue for a certain decision that ends up being disastrously stupid, you are happy to shift blame down the chain of command.

When Benghazi happens, something that top white house staff would have had no involvement in until after the incident happened, all of a sudden all blame goes right to the top?
 
EagleSmack
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by BornRuffView Post

So when the president and his top staffers personally argue for a certain decision that ends up being disastrously stupid, you are happy to shift blame down the chain of command.

When Benghazi happens, something that top white house staff would have had no involvement in until after the incident happened, all of a sudden all blame goes right to the top?

They are all of our leaders and they all bit on the poor intelligence. Well most all of them. My own Democrat Congressman voted along side Bush as well. The Administration and the GOP did pay for it. The GOP got flushed from Congress because of it and Bush became a lame duck after that. Although I didn't like it I knew the GOP did deserve it. And as the Democrats proved... they were the proverbial "dog catching the bus".

And the White House Staff did know what was going on as it was going on and gave the order to stand down. And in the aftermath they lied to limit the impact on the Presidential Campaign.
 
BornRuff
+1
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

They are all of our leaders and they all bit on the poor intelligence. Well most all of them. My own Democrat Congressman voted along side Bush as well. The Administration and the GOP did pay for it. The GOP got flushed from Congress because of it and Bush became a lame duck after that. Although I didn't like it I knew the GOP did deserve it. And as the Democrats proved... they were the proverbial "dog catching the bus".

And the White House Staff did know what was going on as it was going on and gave the order to stand down. And in the aftermath they lied to limit the impact on the Presidential Campaign.

I know I am not going to convince you, but this is exactly the attitude I am talking about.

You very easily pass the buck on this enormous mistake that cost thousands of lives and billions of dollars, but harp endlessly on about this one other incident just because of the political stripe of the guy in office.
 
pgs
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by BornRuffView Post

I know I am not going to convince you, but this is exactly the attitude I am talking about.

You very easily pass the buck on this enormous mistake that cost thousands of lives and billions of dollars, but harp endlessly on about this one other incident just because of the political stripe of the guy in office.

You sir are a sick person .
There is a big difference between declaring war and being attacked .
The U.S.A. was under attack and the administration gave the order to stand down.
The resulting lose of life is squarely in the hands of this administration .


The Iraq war was just that a war and not only Americans participated .
Even us Canadians sent support in our navy , although Cretin wouldn't sign on to the war . He did support it .
 
EagleSmack
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by BornRuffView Post

I know I am not going to convince you, but this is exactly the attitude I am talking about.

You very easily pass the buck on this enormous mistake that cost thousands of lives and billions of dollars, but harp endlessly on about this one other incident just because of the political stripe of the guy in office.

Ok then... because of Iraq we should ignore Benghazi.

 
BornRuff
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by pgsView Post

You sir are a sick person .
There is a big difference between declaring war and being attacked .
The U.S.A. was under attack and the administration gave the order to stand down.
The resulting lose of life is squarely in the hands of this administration .


The Iraq war was just that a war and not only Americans participated .
Even us Canadians sent support in our navy , although Cretin wouldn't sign on to the war . He did support it .

There was no "stand down" order ever given. That has been confirmed in numerous investigations into this incident.

http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/b...4/benghazi.pdf

Yes, a war is different than an attack. A war is much more deliberate and premeditated. This is a war that the previous administration sold to America and its allies based on assertions that were categorically false. Thousands of lives were lost and trillions of dollars were spent based on this lie.

But apparently that is no big deal.
 
Locutus
+2
#29
shillary should be dry-shaved for her ignorant remark alone. nevermind all the dodging and bullsh!t that carney et all spun about some video.
 
BornRuff
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

Ok then... because of Iraq we should ignore Benghazi.

You should give issues the appropriate amount of attention. Benghazi is a drum that some people on the right refuse to stop playing no matter how many investigations are conducted.

It is clear that they don't have any motivation in mind other than trying to pin something on the Obama administration before the midterm elections.

It is disgusting to use the loss of people's lives as a political gimmick.
 

Similar Threads

19
Nero in the White House
by ironsides | Sep 1st, 2011
90
White House Does Not Like Fox News
by DaSleeper | Nov 11th, 2009
47
White House dog
by CBC News | Nov 12th, 2008
9
White House 5th Target
by I think not | Mar 28th, 2006
no new posts