Video; Obama, responsible for Benghazi, case closed.

Originally posted by Pladuim
No, what I'm saying is that they purportedly mislead everyone, the entire world by blaming the attacks on the video. Question is, why did they do that? Was it for political reasons?

Pladuim

Of course it was. Hillary's assistant secretary said that the opposition would use the truth about Benghazi against them. If that isn't a political motive I don't know what is. The Obama narrative had to be maintained and protected on the heels of the election.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
The Obama narrative had to be maintained and protected on the heels of the election.

Why? He was already elected.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Exactly, but wether anything impeachable will become of this is speculation. I Guess we all will have to wait and see.

Pladuim

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
The Obama narrative had to be maintained and protected on the heels of the election.

Why? He was already elected.

Come on now, really? The attact was 2 months before the 2012 election.

Pladuim

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

For at least two reasons, the 2014 elections are 18 months from now, and Hilliary wants the Presidency.

The third reason, of course, is assume for a moment that Obama gave the stand down order. The reaction against him would be quite powerful, possibly even ending his Presidency. Remember that the second article of Impeachment against Nixon was the improper use of the IRS to target enemies.

Originally posted by charles1952
Remember that the second article of Impeachment against Nixon was the improper use of the IRS to target enemies.

I could have sworn I read about the IRS targeting certain people recently.

I didn't know Nixon was back????





In Such a good mood today..........................

reply to post by DistantRumor

Dear DistantRumor,

What an interesting conversation. Carney says there was one small alteration in the talking points. The E-mails show 12 different versions before one was settled on to give to the public. Several of the new versions were asked for by Clinton's office as Secretary of State.

Testimony is coming out from State department officials that they received a "stand down" order from the top of the Administration. The White House denies it.

The Administration says there was no military help available for the diplomats. Military officials reject that.

Then you say

there is no cover up

Honestly I'm trying to help when I say that taking that position doesn't win you many credibility points. Maybe a couple of months ago, it would have worked, but not now. Even MSNBC, ABC, and CNN are admitting that it looks terrible for the Obama administration.

Please stop spending your time worried about motivation. I don't much care why the bad guy committed the crime, I want the facts that will tell whether he did it. So should you.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by Pladuim


You're right. But I was responding to a post that was claiming something "on the heels of the election". To me, that means after the election. Perhaps I misunderstood the poster.

reply to post by charles1952


This is precisely why I think the right is making such a huge deal of this. It's all they've got. We'll see what happens, but I don't think anything will come of it.

Originally posted by DistantRumor
The CIA Intel said it was from a protest, what was changed is that they said they suspected there were Al Qaida elements that hijacked the protest...but they still claimed it was a protest.

The protest talking point wasn't made up out of thin air, it came from the CIA.

gma.yahoo.com...

Like the final version used by Ambassador Rice on the Sunday shows, the CIA's first drafts said the attack appeared to have been "spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo" but the CIA version went on to say, "That being said, we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa'ida participated in the attack." The draft went on to specifically name the al Qaeda-affiliated group named Ansar al-Sharia.

So no, it isn't false...these are the facts. If you want to use the recent reports that the talking points were changed 12 times, you then have to concede that the CIA in fact said that the attack was inspired by the protests.

You mean the protests in Cairo? Did those protesters commute to Benghazi? There was no spontaneous demonstration in Benghazi, and everyone knew it at the time. So the question remains, why was the response of the administration to the public this:
abcnews.go.com...

“Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous – not a premeditated – response to what had transpired in Cairo,” Rice

“We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to – or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo,” Rice said. “And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons… And it then evolved from there.”

Even the new Libyan President was honest with us:

“It was planned, definitely, it was planned by foreigners, by people who entered the country a few months ago, and they were planning this criminal act since their arrival,” Magariaf told CBS News.

So again, why the lies?

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Dear Benevolent Heretic,

I'm forced to admit that I'm confused again. Help, please.

This is precisely why I think the right is making such a huge deal of this. It's all they've got. We'll see what happens, but I don't think anything will come of it.

You may be right that nothing will come of it, but doesn't it seem a little different? Even the Main Stream Media is starting to ask questions and admit that there is something there that doesn't look good for the Administration.

Do you really think that Benghazi is all the Republicans have? Fast and Furious is still in the courts, and gun control seems to be a winning issue for the Republicans, After all, with Newtown, and the President's massive push, photo ops and emotional speeches, not one new gun control law made it through Congress.

Add in Syria and the President's "Red Line", Obamacare, the immigration law, the green energy failures, North Korea, the increased Russian assertiveness (The bomber flights around Guam and Alaska), Kerry's lack of success as Secretary of State so far, the IRS targeting of Obama's "Enemies list," and the worst recovery since the Great Depression, and there are many other targets for the Republicans to shoot at.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by Pladuim
No, what I'm saying is that they purportedly mislead everyone, the entire world by blaming the attacks on the video. Question is, why did they do that? Was it for political reasons?

Pladuim

BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THE CIA TOLD THEM.

Holy crap...talk about going around in circles.

reply to post by charles1952

What an interesting conversation. Carney says there was one small alteration in the talking points. The E-mails show 12 different versions before one was settled on to give to the public. Several of the new versions were asked for by Clinton's office as Secretary of State.

And the reports say most of the revisions were from the State Department. We currently don't know how many of the 12 were from the State Department and how many were from the White House. If the White House truly only had 1 of the 12, then what Carney said is true.

Testimony is coming out from State department officials that they received a "stand down" order from the top of the Administration. The White House denies it.

The Administration says there was no military help available for the diplomats. Military officials reject that.

The testimony wasn't from the Military...it was from Steven's deputy. So what we have is second hand information that Hicks (Steven's deputy) said that he was told that someone called and told the Military to stand down.

Now, all of this is AFTER the initial attack has stopped...so why would you send in MORE people when there is a current evacuation going on?

If all you are angry about is a combat decision, then you are just playing Monday morning quarterback. And let's remember...no US soldiers were killed...just contractors.

Honestly I'm trying to help when I say that taking that position doesn't win you many credibility points. Maybe a couple of months ago, it would have worked, but not now. Even MSNBC, ABC, and CNN are admitting that it looks terrible for the Obama administration.

Please stop spending your time worried about motivation. I don't much care why the bad guy committed the crime, I want the facts that will tell whether he did it. So should you.

I think it is funny you are worried about "credibility points" on an anonymouse website

They never denied that an attack happened...so you should be satisfied. But you are not...because it is YOU that is truly focused on the motivation (video vs 9/11 statement).

reply to post by _Del_

You mean the protests in Cairo? Did those protesters commute to Benghazi? There was no spontaneous demonstration in Benghazi, and everyone knew it at the time. So the question remains, why was the response of the administration to the public this

No, not everyone knew this at the time...including the CIA because it came from them that it was in response to the protests.

This is FACT...the CIA gave the intel.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
The Obama narrative had to be maintained and protected on the heels of the election.

Why? He was already elected.

Really? He was elected sometime before September 11th?

Source?

Originally posted by Pladuim
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Exactly, but wether anything impeachable will become of this is speculation. I Guess we all will have to wait and see.

Pladuim

I really don't think he can be impeached over this. He could do the honorable thing and resign. But I don't want that either because we'd be left with Crazy Uncle Joe.

Originally posted by Pladuim

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
The Obama narrative had to be maintained and protected on the heels of the election.

Why? He was already elected.

Come on now, really? The attact was 2 months before the 2012 election.

Pladuim

Deleted

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by Pladuim

 

You're right. But I was responding to a post that was claiming something "on the heels of the election". To me, that means after the election. Perhaps I misunderstood the poster.

reply to post by charles1952

 

This is precisely why I think the right is making such a huge deal of this. It's all they've got. We'll see what happens, but I don't think anything will come of it.

On the heels means it's just ahead. Like a dog nipping someone's heels that he's chasing.

Originally posted by DistantRumor

Originally posted by Pladuim
No, what I'm saying is that they purportedly mislead everyone, the entire world by blaming the attacks on the video. Question is, why did they do that? Was it for political reasons?

Pladuim

BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THE CIA TOLD THEM.

Holy crap...talk about going around in circles.

The CIA never said it had anything to do with a YouTube video. In fact, the diplomats and assets in Benghazi stated from day one that it was a coordinated attack.

Originally posted by DistantRumor
No, not everyone knew this at the time...including the CIA because it came from them that it was in response to the protests.

This is FACT...the CIA gave the intel.

There was no protest in Benghazi. And they knew that at the time. Now, I don't know that the President knew that. I assume he did, but perhaps he was given the same BS answer as the rest of us. In anyevent, I'd like to see who manufactured the untrue story. Wouldn't you?

reply to post by DistantRumor

Dear DistantRumor,

A top State Department official pressed the CIA and the White House to delete any mention of terrorism in public statements on the Benghazi terror attack to prevent critics from blaming lax security at the consulate, according to documents obtained by ABC News.

The information "goes right to the heart of what the White House continues to deny," Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, told USA TODAY. "For eight months they denied there's any manipulation, but this continues to shed light on something that was never true."

Victoria Nuland, spokeswoman for the State Department, said she was expressing the concerns of her "leadership" when she emailed that a CIA memo on Benghazi should remove references to the attacks links to al-Qaeda and CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack.

ABC News obtained 12 versions of the talking points and reviewed State Department and White House emails that seem to show that references to terrorist involvement in Benghazi were not deleted at the request of the CIA or FBI, as Obama administration officials have said.

The multiple edited versions tell a different story. The initial unclassified memo produced by the CIA for distribution to lawmakers and government officials -- who were to use it to address the public – said extremists linked to al-Qaeda were known to be operating in Benghazi.

Can we now at least agree that the initial talking points memo from the CIA talked about an Al-Qaeda linked attack, and that there had been warnings about the situation for months which were not acted upon? Can we also agree that the changes made to "soften" the CIA report came from Clinton, if not Obama?

With respect,
Charles1952