Benghazi Sept.11 info heating up !

vant0037

aerial wrote:

here is proof this has nothing to do with Right, Left....

That's not really what people are talking about when they argue that this is about politics. You've got it backward - it's the critics (Republicans) and their motives that have us concerned...

mickeyrat

mickeyrat wrote:

catch the perpetrators yet?

No?

Nothing to see here.

JimmyV

http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/14 ... azi-leaks/

"CNN has obtained an e-mail sent by a top aide to President Barack Obama about White House reaction to the deadly attack last September 11 on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, that apparently differs from how sources characterized it to two different media organizations.

The actual e-mail from then-Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes appears to show that whomever leaked it did so in a way that made it appear that the White House was primarily concerned with the State Department's desire to remove references and warnings about specific terrorist groups so as to not bring criticism to the department.

Rhodes, White House communications director Jennifer Palmieri, and White House press secretary Jay Carney, could not be reached for comment.

In the e-mail sent on Friday, September 14, 2012, at 9:34 p.m., obtained by CNN from a U.S. government source, Rhodes wrote:

“All –

“Sorry to be late to this discussion. We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation.

“There is a ton of wrong information getting out into the public domain from Congress and people who are not particularly informed. Insofar as we have firmed up assessments that don’t compromise intel or the investigation, we need to have the capability to correct the record, as there are significant policy and messaging ramifications that would flow from a hardened mis-impression.

We can take this up tomorrow morning at deputies.”

ABC News reported that Rhodes wrote: “We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don’t want to undermine the FBI investigation. We thus will work through the talking points tomorrow morning at the Deputies Committee meeting.” The Weekly Standard reported that Rhodes "responded to the group, explaining that Nuland had raised valid concerns and advising that the issues would be resolved at a meeting of the National Security Council’s Deputies Committee the following morning."

Whoever provided those quotes seemingly invented the notion that Rhodes wanted the concerns of the State Department specifically addressed. While Nuland, particularly, had expressed a desire to remove mentions of specific terrorist groups and CIA warnings about the increasingly dangerous assignment, Rhodes put no emphasis at all in his e-mail on the State Department's concerns."

aerial

vant0037 wrote:

aerial wrote:

here is proof this has nothing to do with Right, Left....

That's not really what people are talking about when they argue that this is about politics. You've got it backward - it's the critics (Republicans) and their motives that have us concerned...

The democrat's should be critics also as Mr. Hicks is.....but they fail to ask relevant questions...they just come up with excuses.....but most Americans Dem. or Republicans caer what happened and do not like to be lied to....by our administration...

'The only people that don't want to disclose the truth, are people with something to hide" Quote by Obama

vant0037

aerial wrote:

The democrat's should be critics also as Mr. Hicks is.....but they fail to ask relevant questions...they just come up with excuses.....but most Americans Dem. or Republicans caer what happened and do not like to be lied to....by our administration...

'The only people that don't want to disclose the truth, are people with something to hide" Quote by Obama

...which is a fine thing to say, but do you or other Republican critics mean it? If we should all be outraged or critical of the Obama administration for this security failure, then what is your take on the dozens of other, similar deadly attacks on American installations during the Bush years? What is your take on Republican critics of Obama who were silent during those times?

For the sake of argument, I agree: we should all be critical of failures or coverups. What does it mean when we pick and choose which events to be outraged by?

Jason P

vant0037 wrote:

...which is a fine thing to say, but do you or other Republican critics mean it? If we should all be outraged or critical of the Obama administration for this security failure, then what is your take on the dozens of other, similar deadly attacks on American installations during the Bush years? What is your take on Republican critics of Obama who were silent during those times?

For the sake of argument, I agree: we should all be critical of failures or coverups. What does it mean when we pick and choose which events to be outraged by?

I don't know why I'm injected myself further into this thread (bored, i guess), but to be fair I don't think there were any accusations of the Bush admin misleading the public in any of those tragic events.

vant0037

Jason P wrote:

I don't know why I'm injected myself further into this thread (bored, i guess), but to be fair I don't think there were any accusations of the Bush admin misleading the public in any of those tragic events.

That may or may not be true, but we shouldn't be deciding if this is a legitimate inquiry or a political witchhunt based on whether whether or not accusations have been leveled.

If people are outraged about the loss of American lives overseas (i.e. the Republican critics now), where were they from 2000-2008? If people are outraged about coverups and scandals in the White House now, where were they from 2000-2008?

None of the critics seem to be able to point out what they surmise Obama is covering up, or why he would want to cover something up, or why they believe the testimonials that deflect blame or culpability from the litany of chief conspirators the right loves to hate (i.e. Obama, Clinton) are incorrect.

Instead, they continue to stir the pot without offering any substantive critique or theory about what's going on. It's driven by conservative talking heads and it's extremely sad that it's gotten so much traction.

If you're truly concerned about a coverup, do your fucking homework. What's being covered up? What's the evidence that it's a coverup? Why is a colossal fuck-up on a Democrat's watch different than a colossal fuck-up on a Republican's?

If it's a legitimate inquiry into the deaths of Americans and a possible coverup, fine. But without more and with an inconsistent "outraged" track record on the right, it looks and smells like a politically-motivated witch hunt...

vant0037

Jason P wrote:

I don't know why I'm injected myself further into this thread (bored, i guess)

And tell me about it...I find myself on ATM far more when there are no tour dates to speak of...

Jason P

vant0037 wrote:

Jason P wrote:

I don't know why I'm injected myself further into this thread (bored, i guess), but to be fair I don't think there were any accusations of the Bush admin misleading the public in any of those tragic events.

That may or may not be true, but we shouldn't be deciding if this is a legitimate inquiry or a political witchhunt based on whether whether or not accusations have been leveled.
...

It's both. Because of the word "terror" and how that word could be used in the election. Or future elections.

But it does appear to me that the admin lied about the timeline and mislead the public long enough to get past November 2nd and avoid having to say that word.

vant0037

Jason P wrote:

It's both. Because of the word "terror" and how that word could be used in the election. Or future elections.

But it does appear to me that the admin lied about the timeline and mislead the public long enough to get past November 2nd and avoid having to say that word.

Is that a coverup? An impeachable offense?

You're right: this is about elections.

Jason P

vant0037 wrote:

Jason P wrote:

It's both. Because of the word "terror" and how that word could be used in the election. Or future elections.

But it does appear to me that the admin lied about the timeline and mislead the public long enough to get past November 2nd and avoid having to say that word.

Is that a coverup? An impeachable offense?

You're right: this is about elections.

Lying to the public is what politicians do best. Why fire someone for being good at what they do?

vant0037

Jason P wrote:

Lying to the public is what politicians do best. Why fire someone for being good at what they do?

I don't know that we're ultimately disagreeing. I'm more interested in seeing some consistency. Personally, I think this is 1% critical issue and 99% political witch hunt, with the 1% being, in the end, unrelated to anything that could've saved lives (which is what the focus should be on). But it's just like it always is. I've merely tried to engage the critics on whether they are actually concerned about this issue, or just using it as a means to attack a president they don't like. It's clear to me that it's been the latter this entire time, which is sad, disgusting, and perfectly on-par with Washington and the mass media.

gimmesometruth27

what crime was committed?

Godfather.

crap Clinton got in all is trouble over a blooooo....hummer and nobody got killed..nobody had the IRS sicked on them all he did was lie to cover his azz which fails in comparison to this mess. :shock:

Godfather.

gimmesometruth27

Godfather. wrote:

crap Clinton got in all is trouble over a blooooo....hummer and nobody got killed..nobody had the IRS sicked on them all he did was lie to cover his azz which fails in comparison to this mess. :shock:

Godfather.

in either case, what crime was committed?

aerial

vant0037 wrote:

Jason P wrote:

I don't know why I'm injected myself further into this thread (bored, i guess), but to be fair I don't think there were any accusations of the Bush admin misleading the public in any of those tragic events.

That may or may not be true, but we shouldn't be deciding if this is a legitimate inquiry or a political witchhunt based on whether whether or not accusations have been leveled.

If people are outraged about the loss of American lives overseas (i.e. the Republican critics now), where were they from 2000-2008? If people are outraged about coverups and scandals in the White House now, where were they from 2000-2008?

None of the critics seem to be able to point out what they surmise Obama is covering up, or why he would want to cover something up, or why they believe the testimonials that deflect blame or culpability from the litany of chief conspirators the right loves to hate (i.e. Obama, Clinton) are incorrect.

Instead, they continue to stir the pot without offering any substantive critique or theory about what's going on. It's driven by conservative talking heads and it's extremely sad that it's gotten so much traction.

If you're truly concerned about a coverup, do your fucking homework. What's being covered up? What's the evidence that it's a coverup? Why is a colossal fuck-up on a Democrat's watch different than a colossal fuck-up on a Republican's?

If it's a legitimate inquiry into the deaths of Americans and a possible coverup, fine. But without more and with an inconsistent "outraged" track record on the right, it looks and smells like a politically-motivated witch hunt...

The reasons we have hearings is to find out what happened....if they would stop lying and be truthful we could fine out....no one is saying one cover up is different....there all colossal fuck ups.....if I had a crystal ball we would not even need hearings....
If Benghazi happened so long ago and is irrelevant as some say 2000-2008 is damned sure irrelevant...

Do you think it is okay for a President to lie to the American people.....

gimmesometruth27

^^^^^

WHAT CRIME WAS COMMITTED?

Cliffy6745

aerial wrote:

vant0037 wrote:

Jason P wrote:

I don't know why I'm injected myself further into this thread (bored, i guess), but to be fair I don't think there were any accusations of the Bush admin misleading the public in any of those tragic events.

That may or may not be true, but we shouldn't be deciding if this is a legitimate inquiry or a political witchhunt based on whether whether or not accusations have been leveled.

If people are outraged about the loss of American lives overseas (i.e. the Republican critics now), where were they from 2000-2008? If people are outraged about coverups and scandals in the White House now, where were they from 2000-2008?

None of the critics seem to be able to point out what they surmise Obama is covering up, or why he would want to cover something up, or why they believe the testimonials that deflect blame or culpability from the litany of chief conspirators the right loves to hate (i.e. Obama, Clinton) are incorrect.

Instead, they continue to stir the pot without offering any substantive critique or theory about what's going on. It's driven by conservative talking heads and it's extremely sad that it's gotten so much traction.

If you're truly concerned about a coverup, do your fucking homework. What's being covered up? What's the evidence that it's a coverup? Why is a colossal fuck-up on a Democrat's watch different than a colossal fuck-up on a Republican's?

If it's a legitimate inquiry into the deaths of Americans and a possible coverup, fine. But without more and with an inconsistent "outraged" track record on the right, it looks and smells like a politically-motivated witch hunt...

The reasons we have hearings is to find out what happened....if they would stop lying and be truthful we could fine out....no one is saying one cover up is different....there all colossal fuck ups.....if I had a crystal ball we would not even need hearings....
If Benghazi happened so long ago and is irrelevant as some say 2000-2008 is damned sure irrelevant...

Do you think it is okay for a President to lie to the American people.....

Says the person who posts republican lies on a daily basis

aerial

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

^^^^^

WHAT CRIME WAS COMMITTED?

Why lie if there was no crime? One crime would be blaming that poor film maker just to cover his ass....why was he covering his ass? That is why we are having hearings.

gimmesometruth27

aerial wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

^^^^^

WHAT CRIME WAS COMMITTED?

Why lie if there was no crime? One crime would be blaming that poor film maker just to cover his ass....why was he covering his ass? That is why we are having hearings.

pray tell, what crime has been committed?

blaming a film maker is NOT a crime.

unethical, yes. despicable, yes. crime, no.