Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It's a simple question, Kiddies! If they weren't deliberately lying...then why reclassify the Rhodes email to "Top Secret" and hide it from Congress?
Specifically, what is in the Rhodes email that is a lie?
http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/1919_production-4-17-14.pdf#page=14
The administration was full of excuses and lied its collective ass off.
They had months of warnings that an attack was coming. Hell. The Brits and the Red Cross pulled out because of those same warnings.
The anniverary of 9-11 was coming up and anyone but a brain dead moron could pretty well take a guess about when the attack would come.
State had months of request for beefed up security. They knew about the warnings and did absofuckinglutely nothing.
When the attack came they then sent Rice out to lie her ass off about a video being the cause of the attack.
Benghazi was something that didn't need to happen. Four good men are dead because Obamas State Department headed by Hilbat did nothing.
Four dead men didn't stop Barry Boy from jetting off to his fundraiser in Vegas. That right there should tell anyone how much the deaths of those men meant to that asshole. Absolutely nothing. His fund raiser was more important.
You can deflect to what Romney said or did all you want but Romney isn't the POTUS. Barry is and the buck stops right at his desk.
Four good men are dead because of an incompetant Obama State Department. And Barry's administration lied its ass off.
Oh, knock it off.
Time for another fake Obama scandal - this one is kaput!
It's a simple question, Kiddies! If they weren't deliberately lying...then why reclassify the Rhodes email to "Top Secret" and hide it from Congress?
Specifically, what is in the Rhodes email that is a lie?
http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/1919_production-4-17-14.pdf#page=14
And the line that the Obama White House obviously didn't want coming to light from the Rhodes email is as follows:
“To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.”
The administration lied its ass off about Benghazi simply because of Barry's re-election. Not rocket science Just the truth.
“To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.”
In an internal agency e-mail at 4:24 p.m.that Friday, he acknowledged that “there is a hurry to get this out.” The talking points should not “conflict with express instructions” from the National Security Council, the FBI and the Justice Department, he wrote, and that “in light of the criminal investigation, we are not to generate statements with assessments as to who did this.”
It's a simple question, Kiddies! If they weren't deliberately lying...then why reclassify the Rhodes email to "Top Secret" and hide it from Congress?
Specifically, what is in the Rhodes email that is a lie?
http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/1919_production-4-17-14.pdf#page=14
And the line that the Obama White House obviously didn't want coming to light from the Rhodes email is as follows:
“To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.”
Understandable considering how the Echo-chamber distorts things. They would likely try and say that the email was exclusively about Benghazi and not the protests happening around the world. Which is exactly what happened. I mean look at you, you still think the WH blamed a the video for the attack and not the extremist who carried it out.
These are the protest the email was referring to.
Timeline Protests over anti-Islam video - Middle East - Al Jazeera English
OS 10279460“To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.”
Do you realize how silly you have been on this thread yet? That line is talking about all protests with an "s" at the end. . Its not about a singular event such as what happened at Benghazi.
That statement is true. There is no reason to hide the email on which it was written.
"we are not to generate statements with assessments as to who did this"
Important to know:
In an internal agency e-mail at 4:24 p.m.that Friday, he acknowledged that “there is a hurry to get this out.” The talking points should not “conflict with express instructions” from the National Security Council, the FBI and the Justice Department, he wrote, and that “in light of the criminal investigation, we are not to generate statements with assessments as to who did this.”
This link provides an excellent background on the development and progression of the CIA talking points.
Petraeus’s role in drafting Benghazi talking points raises questions
Petraeus s role in drafting Benghazi talking points raises questions - The Washington Post
Clau 10279690The administration lied its ass off about Benghazi simply because of Barry's re-election. Not rocket science Just the truth.
You need to build a case based on the facts and transcripts from people involved. Oldstyle has tried to do that but is failing miserably. The Republicans in the House do not have the luxury of making things up and passing it off as fact and hoping to get away with it as Oldstyle has been doing here. That is why the GOP report has accepted that there is no there there. No lies, no coverup, no false narrative, no stand down orders. None of it. You can call GOP investigators stupid or lying or corrupt politicians siding with Obama, but that is .kind of silly if you ask me.
It wasn't made up. The CIA said it was a terrorist attack from the get go. Rice went out and spewed the Administrations line.
Only one problem with your scenario that it was David Petraeus who was behind all of the revisions of the CIA talking points, Notfooled...
Still can't come up with a reason why the White House reclassified the Ben Rhodes email...can you, Notfooled?
The Obama White House knew that there was no protest prior to the attack on our consulate LONG before they finally admitted it!
OS 10278262The Obama White House knew that there was no protest prior to the attack on our consulate LONG before they finally admitted it!
You have your dream of the big gotcha Obama moment, Oldstyle but the reality that trumps much of your nonsense is that the White House can truthfully say that they 'knew' during the first week after the attack exactly what the CIA 'knew' the first week after the attack. And troubling for your 'gotcha' Oldstyle is that the CIA placed what they 'knew' on the record of the official House Committee that requested those CIA Talking Points' for four days after the attack. The CIA talking point emails destroyed your dream already. You just have not awakened to that realization yet. But it will come. It has too.
You can wish that the CIA's, written knowledge of a spontaneous protest that evolved into a deadly attack, did not exist. But it was written and is on the record.
And your claim that the Ben Rhodes email wasn't about what took place the day before in Benghazi is laughable! Rice was getting ready to go out to six Sunday morning news shows to do damage control for the Obama White House and only an IDIOT wouldn't know that she was going to be grilled on Benghazi...
And your claim that the Ben Rhodes email wasn't about what took place the day before in Benghazi is laughable! Rice was getting ready to go out to six Sunday morning news shows to do damage control for the Obama White House and only an IDIOT wouldn't know that she was going to be grilled on Benghazi...
It might help if you learned how to read. I have made no comment that Rice was not going to be grilled on Benghazi. What the transcripts show is that the Ben Rhodes' email was not specific to the incident at Benghazi, so it is dishonest of you to imply or suggest that it was. The Rhodes email in no way changes the fact that the CIA talking points in their original version is what blames the attacks on a demonstration that evolved into an attack. And the CIA draft of that 'demonstration' talking point came many hours prior to the Rhodes email. The timeline of things also upends your entire argument, Oldstyle. You have the Rhodes email out of order with what Petraeus wrote.
You might also concern yourself that the CIA was still uncertain in January 2013 about the level of planning for the September 11, 2012 attack. And you are supposed to have knowledge that the White House could have been certain about it only five days after the attack without much time or possibility of investigation.
Acting CIA Director Michael Morrell wrote a letter to Senator Diane Feinstein on January 4, 2013 stating that "the nature of the attacks did not involve significant preplanning." A year later the US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence wrote in its January 2014 Report on Benghazi, in regard to Morell's letter that "Although it may never be known with complete certainty, it is possible that the individuals and groups involved in the attacks had not planned on conducting those attacks until that day, meaning that specific tactical warning would have been unlikely.
http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/benghazi2014/benghazi.pdf#page=42
So if it is not certain even to the CIA as of earlier this year, that the :"ndividuals and groups involved in the attacks had not planned on conducting those attacks until" the day of the attack then Susan Rice's repeating of the CIA talking point that the attack was spontaneous is not out of the realm of possibility. It is not a false narrative after all.
