New Benghazi E-mails Link White House to Doctoring of Talking Points

[Care4all]

See the youtube video. It was most likely a Freudian slip. He makes the assumption that it WAS a terrorist attack, then is shepherded into the opposite direction by his advisers. Notice how he PIVOTS.

Now if you will excuse me. Have the class and decency to know and admit when you're wrong, Carbine.

I proven to you, with the transcript, that the president called Benghazi an act of terror on September 12th.

You can go birther, and deny that, or, you can concede I'm correct, and we can move on based in FACT,

not having to accept your denial as an alternative to the fact.

Like I told you before, "act of terror" does not mean "terrorist attack." I beg of you to understand the English language before debating me further.

Play it again, Sam!


"Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence."

"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for."

Please explain the contradiction to me. Explain why Susan Rice was sent out to lie to the American people, blaming it on a video. For 14 days after, the White House hushed all mention of the possibility of it being an 'act of terror.'

You do realize that this is what the armed terrorists shouted from their trucks as they reached the complex they attacked and bombarded....according to an eye witness that lived next door to the complex....they shouted from their trucks that they were upset about the video as they drove up....

Of course, this was just an "excuse" for their acts of terror but it is what the group CLAIMED as the attack was happening....according to the guy next door....

We also, with a somewhat covert CIA agency right there, this could give reason to try to draw attention away from the attacker's original purpose...? I am just speculating...but it is possible....

What I don't believe,

(not for one nano second) is that Obama and Clinton were rubbing their hands in glee and with excitement, (and had blood dripping down from their fangs) when they anxiously watched.... as these 4 Americans were brutally massacred.....

and that has been the supposed premise of many many republicans here on this site and in the blogs'phere...imho...and it is just plain wrong, wrong, wrong in so many ways....

 

[Navy1960]

Good evening. Today, our fellow citizens, our way of life, our very freedom came under attack in a series of deliberate and deadly terrorist acts. The victims were in airplanes, or in their offices; secretaries, businessmen and women, military and federal workers; moms and dads, friends and neighbors. Thousands of lives were suddenly ended by evil, despicable acts of terror. 9-11-2001 Pres. George W. Bush

While I believe President Obama did mention in the same context on the 12th President Bush did it still remains that several Americans have died in attacks on Embassies and Consulates over the years due to several factors , among them , not providing enough funding for protection for those men and women who put themselves in harms way for this nation and using these good people as political pawns for the same reason. It's a real shame the focus is not on the people who lost their lives for this nation rather than the political aspects of this.

Well, we are focusing on the cause of their lives being lost. That, being that they played politics and abandoned them to their fate.

A series of errors, beginning with the fact they were denied extra security that was clearly being requested.

Then they deliberately abandoned them and the lied to the American people, including the families of the slain.

All for political expediency.

Not sure what you mean we should focus on the victims, and not the reality of this tragedy. Should we just stare at their pictures and remain silent?

Not sure what you want exactly.

Not making any commentary on President Obama one way or the other or for that matter President Bush, what I am saying is , what is lost sometimes in all this is the fact that not only did 4 Americans die in Benghazi as a result of operating on the "cheap" when it comes to defending Americans in harms way abroad, but over the last several years, several Americans have lost their lives for the very same reason in many Embassies and Consulates for the exact same reason. What is lost sometimes in all this though is that these people who do this for a living don't ask for much, and put themselves into danger willingly for this nation and its not much for both political parties to take pause for a moment and respect the sacrifices of those good people.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Time to break out the heavy artillery:

Here’s how we assessed those words back in October:

Note that in all three cases, the language is not as strong as Obama asserted in the debate. Obama declared that he said “that this was an act of terror.” But actually the president spoke in vague terms, usually wrapped in a patriotic fervor. One could presume he was speaking of the incident in Libya, but he did not affirmatively state that the American ambassador died because of an “act of terror.”​

Some readers may think we are dancing on the head of pin here. The Fact Checker spent nine years as diplomatic correspondent for The Washington Post, and such nuances of phrasing are often very important. A president does not simply utter virtually the same phrase three times in two days about a major international incident without careful thought about the implications of each word.​

​

....

The Fact Checker noted last week that this was an attack on what essentially was a secret CIA operation, which included rounding up weapons from the very people who may have attacked the facility.
Perhaps Obama, in his mind, thought this then was really “an act of war,” not a traditional terrorist attack, but he had not wanted to say that publicly. Or perhaps, as Republicans suggest, he did not want to spoil his campaign theme that terror groups such as al-Qaeda were on the run by conceding a terrorist attack had occurred on the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks.


Whatever the reason, when given repeated opportunities to forthrightly declare this was an “act of terrorism,” the president ducked the question.
For instance, on Sept. 12, immediately after the Rose Garden statement the day after the attack, Obama sat down with Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes and acknowledged he purposely avoided the using the word “terrorism:”

KROFT: “Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word ‘terrorism’ in connection with the Libya attack.”​

OBAMA: “Right.”​

KROFT: “Do you believe that this was a terrorist attack?”​

OBAMA: “Well, it’s too early to know exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans. And we are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice, one way or the other.”​

​

Obama?s claim he called Benghazi an ?act of terrorism? - The Washington Post

In fact, from then on, he REFUSED to call it an 'act of terror.'
​

 

[TemplarKormac]

I proven to you, with the transcript, that the president called Benghazi an act of terror on September 12th.

You can go birther, and deny that, or, you can concede I'm correct, and we can move on based in FACT,

not having to accept your denial as an alternative to the fact.

Like I told you before, "act of terror" does not mean "terrorist attack." I beg of you to understand the English language before debating me further.

Play it again, Sam!


"Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence."

"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for."

Please explain the contradiction to me. Explain why Susan Rice was sent out to lie to the American people, blaming it on a video. For 14 days after, the White House hushed all mention of the possibility of it being an 'act of terror.'

You do realize that this is what the armed terrorists shouted from their trucks as they reached the complex they attacked and bombarded....according to an eye witness that lived next door to the complex....they shouted from their trucks that they were upset about the video as they drove up....

Of course, this was just an "excuse" for their acts of terror but it is what the group CLAIMED as the attack was happening....according to the guy next door....

We also, with a somewhat covert CIA agency right there, this could give reason to try to draw attention away from the attacker's original purpose...? I am just speculating...but it is possible....

What I don't believe,

(not for one nano second) is that Obama and Clinton were rubbing their hands in glee and with excitement, (and had blood dripping down from their fangs) when they anxiously watched.... as these 4 Americans were brutally massacred.....

and that has been the supposed premise of many many republicans here on this site and in the blogs'phere...imho...and it is just plain wrong, wrong, wrong in so many ways....

The State Department made that witness out to be a liar. President Mugariaf said the attack was preplanned, not because of the video. His remarks completely contradicted the video narrative.

And for your information, milady, I consider blogs to be the worst sources of information on the internet. They are subject to the biases of the author, thus unreliable. However, the ones that do fact checking are a different matter.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Eight days later, on Sept. 20, Obama was asked at a Univision town hall whether Benghazi was a terrorist attack related to Al-Qaeda, after White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters that “it is self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.”

QUESTION: “We have reports that the white house said today that the attacks in libya were a terrorist attack. Do you have information indicating that it was Iran, or Al-Qaeda was behind organizing the protests?”​

OBAMA: “Well, we’re still doing an investigation, and there are going to be different circumstances in different countries. And so I don’t want to speak to something until we have all the information. What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. Interests.”​

...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...b65b83e-bc14-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_blog.html

 

[TemplarKormac]

Ah. The silence is golden.

 

[Care4all]

David Kirkpatrick of the New York Times reported that 20-year-old neighbor Mohamed Bishari witnessed the attack. According to Bishari, it was launched without warning or protest and was led by the Islamist militia Ansar al-Sharia (different from the group called Ansar al-Sharia based in Yemen designated by the U.N. and the U.S. Department of State as a terrorist organization[123]). Kirkpatrick reported that Ansar al-Sharia said they were launching the assault in retaliation for the release of the anti-Islamic video, Innocence of Muslims.[124][125] It was further reported that Ahmed Abu Khattala was called a ringleader of the attack by both witnesses and authorities, though he insisted he did not play a part in the aggression at the American compound. Witnesses, Benghazi residents, and Western news reports have described him as a leader of Ansar al-Sharia, though he stated he was close to the group but not an official part of it. He further stated he was the commander of an Islamist brigade, Abu Obaida ibn al-Jarrah, some of whose members had joined Ansar al-Sharia.[126]
The imprisoned Omar Abdul Rahman Brigades, a pro-al-Qaeda militia calling for the release of The Blind Sheik, was implicated in the attack by Noman Benotman of the Quilliam Foundation.[1][127][128] CNN,[1] the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace,[129] Commentary Magazine[128] and The Daily Telegraph[127] have listed this group as a chief suspect. USA Today reported that protests in Cairo which preceded the attack on Benghazi were intended to protest the imprisonment of Sheik Omar Abdul Rahman and announced as early as August 30.[130][131] Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi had called for release of the Blind Sheikh in his inaugural address.[131]
In the days and weeks following the attack, President Obama and other administration officials noted that the video had sparked violent incidents at a number of U.S. diplomatic facilities and stated it was also a prime catalyst for the Benghazi attack. Two days after the attack, CNN reporter Sarah Aarthun quoted an anonymous senior U.S. administration official: "It was not an innocent mob. The video or 9/11 made a handy excuse and could be fortuitous from their perspective but this was a clearly planned military-type attack."[132] In his September 18 appearance on The Late Show with David Letterman, President Obama said that "extremists and terrorists used (the anti-Muslim YouTube video) as an excuse to attack a variety of our embassies."[133] In his Univision Town Hall appearance on September 20, President Obama said that the "natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests."[134] 2012 Benghazi attack - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note the eye witness account and all the times the President said it WAS a terrorist attack under the GUISE of being upset about the video...the video was used as an EXCUSE for the terrorism by the terrorist group....

sigh........

Note the State Department debunked that myth, Care4. The AFRICOM General also testified that the attack was not due in part to the video. As I pointed out earlier, there was preexisting instability in the area as well, even the President of Libya made it clear that the attack had been planned months in advance.

It was a terrorist attack completely unmotivated by the video. I love how you guys are making up all these reasons.

Yes, of course, there were no protests there prior to this attack...it was quiet, silent, in fact some of the guards hired to watch the place said that you didn't even hear or see an ant move, before it happened....and the gentleman that lived right next to the complex said all the attackers drove up in trucks and shouted out their windows, that this attack of theirs was in retaliation for the video....

BUT THIS WAS JUST AN EXCUSE....for the reason for the attack MADE BY THE ATTACKERS....

And yes, our gvt spokes people did repeat what these attackers claimed in this attack in Benghazi and other embassy attacks this same day throughout the region and the world, but also were quick to say that this was just an "excuse" for the attacks...that they attacked us to hurt us, they were enemy groups, groups against us, that used the video as an excuse to hurt us.....

Is that truly so hard to understand Temp?

 

[Plasmaball]

Like I told you before, "act of terror" does not mean "terrorist attack." I beg of you to understand the English language before debating me further.

Play it again, Sam!


"Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence."

"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for."

Please explain the contradiction to me. Explain why Susan Rice was sent out to lie to the American people, blaming it on a video. For 14 days after, the White House hushed all mention of the possibility of it being an 'act of terror.'

You do realize that this is what the armed terrorists shouted from their trucks as they reached the complex they attacked and bombarded....according to an eye witness that lived next door to the complex....they shouted from their trucks that they were upset about the video as they drove up....

Of course, this was just an "excuse" for their acts of terror but it is what the group CLAIMED as the attack was happening....according to the guy next door....

We also, with a somewhat covert CIA agency right there, this could give reason to try to draw attention away from the attacker's original purpose...? I am just speculating...but it is possible....

What I don't believe,

(not for one nano second) is that Obama and Clinton were rubbing their hands in glee and with excitement, (and had blood dripping down from their fangs) when they anxiously watched.... as these 4 Americans were brutally massacred.....

and that has been the supposed premise of many many republicans here on this site and in the blogs'phere...imho...and it is just plain wrong, wrong, wrong in so many ways....

The State Department made that witness out to be a liar. President Mugariaf said the attack was preplanned, not because of the video. His remarks completely contradicted the video narrative.

And for your information, milady, I consider blogs to be the worst sources of information on the internet. They are subject to the biases of the author, thus unreliable. However, the ones that do fact checking are a different matter.

blog is a blog is a blog...

 

[tinydancer]

There is no evidence of a cover up.

(Miss lollipop is hot.)

There's 100 pages of evidence. What I see here is liberals frantically racing to make up reasons for why this isn't true. Just admit it, the White House was involved in covering up the truth about Benghazi.

If there's 100 pages of evidence that no one really knows why this mob attacked.

and we'll probably never know. And at the end of the day, it isn't really that important.

No one is responsible for Ambassador Stevens' death other than the mob that killed him. Sensible people realize this.

Faux News viewers, they live in their own world of delusion and conspiracy theories.

So you are calling that good devoted Democrat Secretary of Defense a liar? And General Ham a liar?

The testimony that they knew immediately that this was a terror attack is on record.

What is stunning is that liberals like you can come on any message board day after day after day and blatantly lie your asses off.

Lie even though the evidence was clear from the get go that this was a terror attack and key personnel in this administration have given testimony to this.

Unreal. You are pathological liars. Of that there is no doubt.

 

[tinydancer]

I proven to you, with the transcript, that the president called Benghazi an act of terror on September 12th.

You can go birther, and deny that, or, you can concede I'm correct, and we can move on based in FACT,

not having to accept your denial as an alternative to the fact.

So now you find yourself in the position of explaining Obama sending Susan Rice out to five Sunday network talk shows to spin the story differently.

Insert 'Mission Impossible' theme music...


.

which was what story? that they needed more evidence before they where committed to what really happened?

Panetta and Ham testified that they knew immediately that this was a terror attack.

 

[depotoo]

[ame=http://youtube.com/watch?v=1LRKGOrRkT4]State Department: Budget Had Nothing To Do With Security Decisions At Benghazi - YouTube[/ame]

once again, budget had nothing to do with it, according to the State Dept.

Good evening. Today, our fellow citizens, our way of life, our very freedom came under attack in a series of deliberate and deadly terrorist acts. The victims were in airplanes, or in their offices; secretaries, businessmen and women, military and federal workers; moms and dads, friends and neighbors. Thousands of lives were suddenly ended by evil, despicable acts of terror. 9-11-2001 Pres. George W. Bush

While I believe President Obama did mention in the same context on the 12th President Bush did it still remains that several Americans have died in attacks on Embassies and Consulates over the years due to several factors , among them , not providing enough funding for protection for those men and women who put themselves in harms way for this nation and using these good people as political pawns for the same reason. It's a real shame the focus is not on the people who lost their lives for this nation rather than the political aspects of this.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Note the eye witness account and all the times the President said it WAS a terrorist attack under the GUISE of being upset about the video...the video was used as an EXCUSE for the terrorism by the terrorist group....

sigh........

Note the State Department debunked that myth, Care4. The AFRICOM General also testified that the attack was not due in part to the video. As I pointed out earlier, there was preexisting instability in the area as well, even the President of Libya made it clear that the attack had been planned months in advance.

It was a terrorist attack completely unmotivated by the video. I love how you guys are making up all these reasons.

Yes, of course, there were no protests there prior to this attack...it was quiet, silent, in fact some of the guards hired to watch the place said that you didn't even hear or see an ant move, before it happened....and the gentleman that lived right next to the complex said all the attackers drove up in trucks and shouted out their windows, that this attack of theirs was in retaliation for the video....

BUT THIS WAS JUST AN EXCUSE....for the reason for the attack MADE BY THE ATTACKERS....

And yes, our gvt spokes people did repeat what these attackers claimed in this attack in Benghazi and other embassy attacks this same day throughout the region and the world, but also were quick to say that this was just an "excuse" for the attacks...that they attacked us to hurt us, they were enemy groups, groups against us, that used the video as an excuse to hurt us.....

Is that truly so hard to understand Temp?

What I fail to understand is why people lie on purpose, day in and day out. We can speculate all you like Care4, but in the end, the video had no bearing on the attack. Clear as day.

 

[tinydancer]

All this information is out there. It's not a fairy tale.


"Once upon a time in Benghazi people got mad at a video and killed our Ambassador and some others and they all died and live 6 feet underground" is not going to work anymore.

Why do you libs keep harping that the fairy tale is the "liberal truth du jour"?

You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts. Plain and simple.

 

[The T]

Note the State Department debunked that myth, Care4. The AFRICOM General also testified that the attack was not due in part to the video. As I pointed out earlier, there was preexisting instability in the area as well, even the President of Libya made it clear that the attack had been planned months in advance.

It was a terrorist attack completely unmotivated by the video. I love how you guys are making up all these reasons.

Yes, of course, there were no protests there prior to this attack...it was quiet, silent, in fact some of the guards hired to watch the place said that you didn't even hear or see an ant move, before it happened....and the gentleman that lived right next to the complex said all the attackers drove up in trucks and shouted out their windows, that this attack of theirs was in retaliation for the video....

BUT THIS WAS JUST AN EXCUSE....for the reason for the attack MADE BY THE ATTACKERS....

And yes, our gvt spokes people did repeat what these attackers claimed in this attack in Benghazi and other embassy attacks this same day throughout the region and the world, but also were quick to say that this was just an "excuse" for the attacks...that they attacked us to hurt us, they were enemy groups, groups against us, that used the video as an excuse to hurt us.....

Is that truly so hard to understand Temp?

What I fail to understand is why people lie on purpose, day in and day out. We can speculate all you like Care4, but in the end, the video had no bearing on the attack. Clear as day.

it was indeed a planned attack. Any idiot with a modicum of common sense can see it. I suppose these people will defend lies/lying/liars until their dying breath. SAD...Reality and truth eludes them still.

 

[Nyvin]

6/14/02 - US consulate in Pakistan - 12 killed and 51 injured
2/28/03 - Diplomatic compound in Saudi Arabia - 17 killed
6/30/04 - US Embassy in Uzbekistan - 2 killed
12/6/04 - US consulate on Saudi Arabia - 5 killed and 10 injured
3/2/06 - US consulate in Pakistan - 4 killed, including a US diplomate
9/12/06 - US Embassy in Syria - 1 dead and 13 wounded
1/12/07 - US Embassy in Greece - rocket grenade - no injuries
3/18/08 - US Embassy in Yemen - motar attack missed embassy and hit a girls school
7/9/08 - US consolate in turkey - 3 policemen killed
9/17/08 - US Embassy in Yemen, 7 killed and 16 injured

All under Bush

 

[Navy1960]

State Department: Budget Had Nothing To Do With Security Decisions At Benghazi - YouTube

once again, budget had nothing to do with it, according to the State Dept.

Good evening. Today, our fellow citizens, our way of life, our very freedom came under attack in a series of deliberate and deadly terrorist acts. The victims were in airplanes, or in their offices; secretaries, businessmen and women, military and federal workers; moms and dads, friends and neighbors. Thousands of lives were suddenly ended by evil, despicable acts of terror. 9-11-2001 Pres. George W. Bush

While I believe President Obama did mention in the same context on the 12th President Bush did it still remains that several Americans have died in attacks on Embassies and Consulates over the years due to several factors , among them , not providing enough funding for protection for those men and women who put themselves in harms way for this nation and using these good people as political pawns for the same reason. It's a real shame the focus is not on the people who lost their lives for this nation rather than the political aspects of this.

CBS News) The former head of a Special Forces "Site Security Team" in Libya tells CBS News that in spite of multiple pleas from himself and other U.S. security officials on the ground for "more, not less" security personnel, the State Department removed as many as 34 people from the country in the six months before the terrorist attack in Benghazi that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others.


Ex-U.S. security team leader in Libya: "We needed more, not less" security staff - CBS News

I don't care what State said much less Congress, it's pretty clear the people on the ground have a better idea what the needs are and if they were communicated to State and rejected then someone should answer for it. If they were communicated and were waiting for approval again someone should answer for it.

 

[Care4all]

So now you find yourself in the position of explaining Obama sending Susan Rice out to five Sunday network talk shows to spin the story differently.

Insert 'Mission Impossible' theme music...


.

which was what story? that they needed more evidence before they where committed to what really happened?

Panetta and Ham testified that they knew immediately that this was a terror attack.

Of course they knew immediately this was a terrorist attack, acts of terror occurred immediately..........so duh....what they did not know immediately is why the attacks occurred and for what real reason, other than what they shouted from their windows, OR they knew these terrorists were acting out against the supposedly secret CIA operation there, or were Gaddafi supporters of the past, or were AlQaeda type terrorists....I don't expect to be told the truth on who did it and the "why", in just 24-72 hours after it happened, I'm certain things are much more complex than what anyone initially thought they ' knew'....

btw, SEVERAL people involved in the attack have been detained/released and or arrested in the case...no trials and convictions yet though....

 

[Oldstyle]

What this boards liberals can't quite grasp is that the lies that the Obama Administration told were not to satisfy conservatives...we haven't believed much of anything this man has said in years...the lies were told to you because quite frankly...Barry & Friends don't think you're very smart. They think you'll fall for the nonsense that Jay Carney was been spouting after that classified email was made public. Think about that for a bit...let it sink in...they think you're an idiot. They think that even after that email they tried to hide showed exactly what they were doing when they trotted Susan Rice out to those 5 Sunday morning talk show that they can pee on your head and tell you it's raining.

 

[The T]

What this boards liberals can't quite grasp is that the lies that the Obama Administration told were not to satisfy conservatives...we haven't believed much of anything this man has said in years...the lies were told to you because quite frankly...Barry & Friends don't think you're very smart. They think you'll fall for the nonsense that Jay Carney was been spouting after that classified email was made public. Think about that for a bit...let it sink in...they think you're an idiot. They think that even after that email they tried to hide showed exactly what they were doing when they trotted Susan Rice out to those 5 Sunday morning talk show that they can pee on your head and tell you it's raining.

Exactly. I fail to understand how people are so willing to believe the lies we are being told. Is the truth that difficult for these people? Do they really want to hide from it? Why? They can take comfort that in the end? Truth will win no matter how long they try to hide from it, or stave it off. Truth has no agenda. Truth has no time limits.

 

[percysunshine]

I proven to you, with the transcript, that the president called Benghazi an act of terror on September 12th.

You can go birther, and deny that, or, you can concede I'm correct, and we can move on based in FACT,

not having to accept your denial as an alternative to the fact.

So now you find yourself in the position of explaining Obama sending Susan Rice out to five Sunday network talk shows to spin the story differently.

Insert 'Mission Impossible' theme music...


.

which was what story? that they needed more evidence before they where committed to what really happened?

Running interference again for NYc?

He is a big boy and can do the 'Mission Impossible' thingy.

.