Jump to content

Benghazi Emails Show White House Effort to Protect Obama


Valin

Recommended Posts

Issa: 'Disturbing and Perhaps Criminal' That WH Withheld Key Benghazi Documents

 

CNSNews.com) - Documents relating to the Sept. 11, 2011 terror attack in Benghazi -- released by the White House just days ago under a Freedom of Information Act Request -- should have been turned over to Congress a year and a half ago, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) told a hearing of the House Oversight Committee on Thursday.

 

Some of the newly released documents indicate that the White House -- two months before the presidential election -- encouraged Susan Rice to blame the deadly Benghazi attack on a protest stemming from an obscure anti-Muslim video.

 

"In pushing the false narrative that a YouTube video was responsible for the deaths of four brave Americans, it is disturbing and perhaps criminal that these documents -- that documents like these -- were hidden by the Obama administration from Congress and the public alike, particularly after Secretary Kerry pledged cooperation and the president himself told the American people in November of 2012 that, quote, 'every bit of information we have on Benghazi has been provided,'" Issa said.Scissors-32x32.png

 

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/issa-disturbing-and-perhaps-criminal-wh-withheld-key-benghazi-documents

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Top Intel Chief Testifies: 'We Should Have Sent Help For Americans in Benghazi'

 

Testifying in front of a House Oversight Committee hearing Thursday on Capitol Hill, retired Air Force Brigadier General Robert Lovell said the military should have and could have done more to help Americans who were killed in Benghazi on September 11, 2012. Lovell is the former deputy director for intelligence at Africa Command. His testimony today is the first testimony from a member of the military who was at Africa Command during the time of the Benghazi attack on the U.S consulate.

 

"Many with firsthand knowledge have recounted the heroism displayed by the brave Americans in Benghazi that night. They fought the way they trained. That is in the record. Outside of Libya there were discussions that churned on about what we should do. These elements also fought the way they were trained. Specifically, the predisposition to interagency influence had the military structure—in the spirit of expeditionary government support—waiting for a request for assistance from the State Department. There are accounts of time, space and capability discussions of the question, could we have gotten there in time to make a difference. Well, the discussion is not in the “could or could not” in relation to time, space and capability—the point is we should have tried. As another saying goes: “Always move to the sound of the guns,” Lovell said. "It is with a sense of duty as a retired General officer that I respectfully submit these thoughts and perspectives."Scissors-32x32.png

 

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2014/05/01/we-should-have-tried-to-help-our-people-in-benghazi-n1832131

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not Watergate, of course. To the media, this doesn't even merit a 'gate.' Christie has Bridgegate, but no 'Benghazigate.'

 

In fact, there's no 'IRS-gate,' there's no 'DOJ-gate,' there's no 'Fast & Furious-gate.' Obama's White House is a gated community. It's guards are the media and anyone who asks questions is mocked. Can you blame the White House for the coverup? You can, but the media won't care, because they covered up the cover-up. And now they will coverup the cover-up of the cover-up. This isn't just Benghazigate, it's Mediagate. They are so good at concealing they could put Revlon out of business.

 

Greg Gutfeld

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Top Intel Chief Testifies: 'We Should Have Sent Help For Americans in Benghazi'

My small question... 24 hours to launch 2 Fighters and a Tanker? Give me a frigging break! angry.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not Watergate, of course. To the media, this doesn't even merit a 'gate.' Christie has Bridgegate, but no 'Benghazigate.'

 

In fact, there's no 'IRS-gate,' there's no 'DOJ-gate,' there's no 'Fast & Furious-gate.' Obama's White House is a gated community. It's guards are the media and anyone who asks questions is mocked. Can you blame the White House for the coverup? You can, but the media won't care, because they covered up the cover-up. And now they will coverup the cover-up of the cover-up. This isn't just Benghazigate, it's Mediagate. They are so good at concealing they could put Revlon out of business.

 

Greg Gutfeld

 

This sounds just like Greg Gutfeld. I like his style.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama’s ‘Blame the Video’ Fraud Started in Cairo, Not Benghazi
The e-mail revelations and the Obama administration’s lies
Andrew C. McCarthy
May 1, 2014

Here is the main point: The rioting at the American embassy in Cairo was not about the anti-Muslim video. As argued here repeatedly (see here and here), the Obama administration’s “Blame the Video” story was a fraudulent explanation for the September 11, 2012, rioting in Cairo every bit as much as it was a fraudulent explanation for the massacre in Benghazi several hours later.

 

We’ll come back to that because, once you grasp this well-hidden fact, the Obama administration’s derelictions of duty in connection with Benghazi become much easier to see. But let’s begin with Jay Carney’s performance in Wednesday’s exchange with the White House press corps, a new low in insulting the intelligence of the American people.

 

(Snip)

 

Because there was a kernel of truth to the video story, and because the American media have abdicated their responsibility to report the predominant causes of anti-Americanism in Egypt, journalists and the public have uncritically accepted the notion — a false notion — that the video caused the Cairo rioting. That acceptance is key to the administration’s “Blame the Video” farce in connection with the lethal attack in Benghazi.

 

At about 10 p.m. Washington time on the night of September 11 — after they knew our ambassador to Libya had been murdered and while the siege of Benghazi still raged — Secretary of State Clinton and President Obama spoke on the telephone. Shortly afterwards, the State Department issued a statement from Secretary Clinton blaming the video for the atrocity in Benghazi. That was the beginning of the fraud’s Benghazi phase — the phase Susan Rice was prepped to peddle on nationwide television. But it wasn’t the beginning of the fraud.

 

Secretary Clinton’s minions at the State Department had started spinning the video fraud hours earlier, in Egypt. The sooner Americans grasp that, the sooner they will comprehend the breathtaking depth of the president’s Benghazi cover-up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pelosi: Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi! Why arent we talking about something else?

Erika Johnsen

May 1, 2014

 

Ah, yes because as we all should know very well by now, investigating the Benghazi attack and its aftermath has only ever been about crazed hyper-partisan Republicans wielding preposterous conspiracy theories in a wildly politicized attempt to reopen an obviously open-and-shut case, and not at all about the White House trying to cover the tracks of its own incompetence whilst preserving the narrative that al Qaeda had been decimated and was on the run. We should be talking about more important things, like Democrats old-and-busted, top-down ideas for killing jobs and further encumbering the economy!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Benghazi Lies

STEPHEN F. HAYES

May 12, 2014, Vol. 19, No. 33

 

In response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed last summer by Judicial Watch, the Obama administration last week released 41 documents related to the attacks on U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012. An email from the deputy national security adviser, Ben Rhodes, has received most of the attention. In it, Rhodes laid out four goals for Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, who would be appearing on five Sunday talk shows 36 hours later. To convey that the United States is doing everything that we can to protect our people and facilities abroad; To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy; To show that we will be resolute in bringing people who harm Americans to justice, and standing steadfast through these protests; To reinforce the President and Administrations strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges.

 

(Snip)

 

In testimony last month, Michael Morell, the former deputy director of the CIA, distanced his agency from Rices video-focused narrative on Benghazi. He acknowledged that the CIA had, incorrectly, provided an assessment that included a discussion of protests outside the diplomatic post in Benghazi. But, when it came to the video, he made clear that Rice was on her own. When she talked about the video, my reaction was, thats not something the analysts have attributed this attack to. The comments were notable not only because Morell has been a reliable water-carrier for the Obama administration on Benghazi, but because they further illuminated a split between the White House and the CIA that has been evident for some time.

 

It is now clear that there were, in effect, two sets of Benghazi talking points. The first were initially produced by the CIAs Office of Terrorism Analysis and, after heavy input from top Obama administration officials, provided to Capitol Hill and to Susan Rice. These are the talking points that have gotten so much attention over the past 18 monthsthe ones that started out with bold and declarative statements about the al Qaeda role in the attacks on the Benghazi compound and were watered down after input from the White House and the State Department. Last May, after the contents of email traffic related to that first set of talking points were described in this magazine and on ABC News, the White House released some of the emails. There were just two passing references to the video in those 100 pages of email traffic.

 

(Snip)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

clearvision

Most people that I talk to have never heard of the Koch brothers, Dems and Republicans alike. Really only political junkies pay any attention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most people that I talk to have never heard of the Koch brothers, Dems and Republicans alike. Really only political junkies pay any attention.

 

And George Soros?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most people that I talk to have never heard of the Koch brothers, Dems and Republicans alike. Really only political junkies pay any attention.

 

That is also probably true of George Soros in most cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Most people that I talk to have never heard of the Koch brothers, Dems and Republicans alike. Really only political junkies pay any attention.

 

And George Soros?

 

HaHaHa. Great minds?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Most people that I talk to have never heard of the Koch brothers, Dems and Republicans alike. Really only political junkies pay any attention.

 

And George Soros?

 

HaHaHa. Great minds?

 

 

 

The only people who know who these people are, are people who really need a life!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scandal? What Scandal?

John Hinderaker

5/3/14

 

How will the Democratic Party press try to defend the Obama administration over Benghazi? It wont: it will ignore the story and hope it goes away. To the extent that liberals comment on Benghazi, it will be to mock conservatives for being concerned about it, without ever explaining what the scandal is all about. Here are two examples.

 

Steve Sack has been the editorial cartoonist at the * Minneapolis Star Tribune for about 50 years. He is right at home at that papera Democratic Party hack who need only be told the party line, and can be counted on to parrot it. This morning Sack did a cartoon on Benghazi:

 

561x425xows_139907304018227.jpg.pagespee

 

(Snip)

 

Youve probably never heard of Steve Sack, but no doubt you are aware of the New York Times. The Times, too, studiously averts its eyes from the administrations failures and lies. Charles Lifson wrote on Facebook today:

 

The major story of the day and of the week is the unraveling Benghazi coverup and the appointment of a Select Committee to investigate it. Todays NYT gave it virtually ZERO attention. Todays NYT features a reasonable lead story (US Spying on Germany). Its second story is a positive spin on very mixed job numbers. The other front-page stories are Obamas review of executions after the Oklahoma fiasco, then a big story on maltreatment of Muslims in Myanmar (yes, the Times made that a huge front page story), then lobbying for NY state casinos, and then a criticism of rape stories in Game of Thrones. There is a sentence at the bottom of p.1 saying they have a story inside called Seeking a Benghazi Inquiry. There are, of course, zero editorials or op-eds on Benghazi. (My prediction: the Times will start running opinion pieces only after they figure out how to defend the Administrations policy and the coverup, keep Hillary out of harms way, and attack the Republican investigation. Protecting Hillary will be crucial.)

 

Where, pray tell, is Benghazi in the fast-sinking paper of record?? Its on page A11, below the fold. That is slightly better than including it in small print among the paid obituary notices. Btw, the NYT subheader next to a picture of Speaker Boehner inadvertently gives you the Times editorial position: Ensuring an issue will remain active for midterm elections. Certainly not if the Times has anything to do with it.

 

(snip)

 

 

* Pravda on the Prairie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • 1711727016
×
×
  • Create New...