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

[NYcarbineer]

1) He called it a terrorist attack.
2) They were really upset about that video
3) Romney didn't lose because of Benghazi. He lost because he didn't slather enough religous crazy over the plutocracy.

Show me a video of Obama calling Benghazi a terrorist attack. Those words, not some general nonsense. It has to be Obama saying "Benghazi was an attack by al Qaeda affiliates and it was an act of terror".

The video was an afterthought or at best a plant by the administration after the fact.

Romney lost because he didn't think Obama would stoop to such a low level in order to win. Obama has never won an election without using tricks or race to weasel his way into office. Hillary can testify what happened. She hates him with a passion because the rules during the primaries allowed Obama to get as many points as she did even when she won the state. She would win the state and Obama would come in with his caucuses and still take half of the points. Obama just had better cheaters than she did.

What the hell is the difference between "act of terror" and "terrorist attack?"

Does one of them not use terror, or something?

Are towel-heads not involved somehow?

Seriously, I can't figure it the fuck out....

TemparKormac has now taken the position that 9/11 was not an act of terror...

that is what a kneeslapper his thread has turned into.

 

[TemplarKormac]

That's simply false. He was talking ABOUT Benghazi just before he referenced acts of terror.

It's called context. Look it up.

It's called spin, and you're quite good at it. Crowley admitted she was wrong, and Obama never referred to Benghazi as an "act of terror." She was promptly forced to apologize for interjecting herself into a presidential debate.

No, Carbine, what you said is 'simply false.'

Crowley is just another person who doesn't know what she's talking about.

The President said this:


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. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act.

'ACTS of terror' opens the remark.

'this terrible ACT' ends it.

The President refers to the broad category of acts of terror, and then puts Benghazi into that category, referring to it as another specific act.

He references 'four MORE Americans', thus ADDING them to those who have already in the past died in 'acts of terror'. Do you know what the word 'more' means in that context?

Alas, it is "acts" plural, not "act" singular. Benghazi was a single act of terror. Not multiple acts of terror. When he closes with 'act' he stops short of calling it "of terror" or "of terrorism;" simply referring to it as 'terrible'. So your argument is therefore invalid.

You must be getting pretty desperate when you have to label each man as an act of terror, to fit the words the president spoke in the rose garden. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Now scram.

 

[NYcarbineer]

why are libs freaking out over an investigation into Benghazi?

i dont recall Republicans hyperventilating over the 9-11 Commission



all we seek is the truth?

what are the obama-bots and rabid Dems afraid of?

Most Democrats are secretly ecstatic that the radical right is once again frothing over Benghazi.

 

[mudwhistle]

Crowley is just another person who doesn't know what she's talking about.

The President said this:


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. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act.

'ACTS of terror' opens the remark.

'this terrible ACT' ends it.

The President refers to the broad category of acts of terror, and then puts Benghazi into that category, referring to it as another specific act.

He references 'four MORE Americans', thus ADDING them to those who have already in the past died in 'acts of terror'. Do you know what the word 'more' means in that context?

In the real world just saying "Terror" shouldn't bail they lying asshole out if he insisted on claiming it wasn't caused by terrorists for weeks afterward, but in your little world of self-denial, it works.

So, either he believed during that speech, that it was an act of terror, and then decided to change his story afterward, the fact remains that he sent Susan Rice on 5 talk shows to lie to America. This cannot be excused by the fact that he admitted the truth initially, even though that admission wasn't obvious and reluctant at best.

Susan Rice never denied it was an act of terror. Nobody in the adminstration ever denied it was an act of terror.

With this press I'm not surprised. They're more interested in hearing how they feel than asking real questions.

The point isn't did they deny it was terror. That's a Red Herring.

The point is they lied about the cause of the attack and minimized the real causes to help the president's speeches appear genuine. That email proves it. Sorry, but that's all there is too it.

The mystery is why none of the eye-witnesses can be questioned and why is the administration trying desperately to not investigate this. Why have they refused to bring the guilty to justice? The only thing they've done is give speeches and make false promises.....oh and jail an innocent man. Sounds like your typical Banana Republic.

 

[mudwhistle]

why are libs freaking out over an investigation into Benghazi?

i dont recall Republicans hyperventilating over the 9-11 Commission



all we seek is the truth?

what are the obama-bots and rabid Dems afraid of?

Most Democrats are secretly ecstatic that the radical right is once again frothing over Benghazi.

Hey, sounds good......run with it.


Course it's not believable, because after the tendency to do handsprings every time they feel they won, I don't think it's plausible.

Examples: "Yay, we only lost 499 thousand jobs this month....PARTY TIME!!!"

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's called spin, and you're quite good at it. Crowley admitted she was wrong, and Obama never referred to Benghazi as an "act of terror." She was promptly forced to apologize for interjecting herself into a presidential debate.

No, Carbine, what you said is 'simply false.'

Crowley is just another person who doesn't know what she's talking about.

The President said this:


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. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act.

'ACTS of terror' opens the remark.

'this terrible ACT' ends it.

The President refers to the broad category of acts of terror, and then puts Benghazi into that category, referring to it as another specific act.

He references 'four MORE Americans', thus ADDING them to those who have already in the past died in 'acts of terror'. Do you know what the word 'more' means in that context?

Alas, it is "acts" plural, not "act" singular. Benghazi was a single act of terror. Not multiple acts of terror. So your argument is therefore invalid.

You must be getting pretty desperate when you have to label each man as an act of terror, to fit the words the president spoke in the rose garden. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Now scram.

Acts of terror is plural because there have been more than one you idiot.

Was 9/11 an act of terror?

 

[NYcarbineer]

why are libs freaking out over an investigation into Benghazi?

i dont recall Republicans hyperventilating over the 9-11 Commission



all we seek is the truth?

what are the obama-bots and rabid Dems afraid of?

Most Democrats are secretly ecstatic that the radical right is once again frothing over Benghazi.

Hey, sounds good......run with it.

The nuts think that somehow Benghazi might knock Hillary out of the presidential race. Is that what you want? Would you rather see some nut like Rand Paul running against some sane Democratic governor like Martin O'Malley?

You realize, don't you, that if Hillary doesn't run, whatever value you might imagine Benghazi had disappears. Whatever value Hillary's support for the Iraq was might have had disappears. All the Clinton baggage you might imagine helps the GOP disappears.

Careful what you wish for.

 

[jon_berzerk]

we sure have came a long way

from when Mike Morell under sworn testimony

claimed except for changing one word

the White House had no role in changing the talking points

 

[TemplarKormac]

why are libs freaking out over an investigation into Benghazi?

i dont recall Republicans hyperventilating over the 9-11 Commission



all we seek is the truth?

what are the obama-bots and rabid Dems afraid of?

Most Democrats are secretly ecstatic that the radical right is once again frothing over Benghazi.

Ha.

No, we aren't just frothing over Benghazi, we're pissed about Obamacare, and Keystone, we're angry that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid used his influence to bully a rancher in Nevada. We're upset at a president who disregards the Constitution on a whim. We have a slew of whole issues to be indignant about.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[ Benghazi was a single act of terror. .

There, you finally acknowledged that Benghazi, specifically, was an act of terror. You are now on the same page the President was on 9/12/12.

Congratulations.

 

[JoeB131]

That defeatist attitude cannot be acceptable in today's world.

If you want a bunch of losers in the White House, you got your wish.

It seems to me that failure is celebrated by you guys on the left, not success.

If you can't succeed you just bull shit everyone into thinking you won.

We're losing out to Russia, China, and Iran because our president is a bull shit artist with no real backbone and a big mouth. Everyone is laughing at us.

Guy, i don't know anyone who would rather live in ANY of those countries than the USA.

And what does any of that have to do with anything I just said?

If you really think we need an "investigation" of it, then do a non-partisan commission to review it. Just like we did with 9/11.

If you are just out to validate your ODS, we can do that, too, I guess.

I'd rather have government working on the real problems.

Yeah, like jobs.

What a fucken parrot.

Yes, it would be nice if Boehner had passed a jobs bill instead of launching countless investigations and meaningless resolutions to reverse ObamaCare.

 

[JoeB131]

[q

Ha.

No, we aren't just frothing over Benghazi, we're pissed about Obamacare, and Keystone, we're angry that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid used his influence to bully a rancher in Nevada. We're upset at a president who disregards the Constitution on a whim. We have a slew of whole issues to be indignant about.

so when do you get indignant about something that actually has an effect on your life?

Or do you really think that some freeloading rancher not paying his grazing fees is going to get you off the couch?

 

[NYcarbineer]

why are libs freaking out over an investigation into Benghazi?

i dont recall Republicans hyperventilating over the 9-11 Commission



all we seek is the truth?

what are the obama-bots and rabid Dems afraid of?

Most Democrats are secretly ecstatic that the radical right is once again frothing over Benghazi.

Ha.

No, we aren't just frothing over Benghazi, we're pissed about Obamacare, and Keystone, we're angry that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid used his influence to bully a rancher in Nevada. We're upset at a president who disregards the Constitution on a whim. We have a slew of whole issues to be indignant about.

YOU may still be a big fan of 'let me tell you about the Negro' Bundy, but the GOP isn't, at least not those running for office.

And Obamacare is dead as a good issue for the GOP in swing states and districts.

You need to get updated on the real world once in awhile.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Crowley is just another person who doesn't know what she's talking about.

The President said this:


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. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act.

'ACTS of terror' opens the remark.

'this terrible ACT' ends it.

The President refers to the broad category of acts of terror, and then puts Benghazi into that category, referring to it as another specific act.

He references 'four MORE Americans', thus ADDING them to those who have already in the past died in 'acts of terror'. Do you know what the word 'more' means in that context?

Alas, it is "acts" plural, not "act" singular. Benghazi was a single act of terror. Not multiple acts of terror. So your argument is therefore invalid.

You must be getting pretty desperate when you have to label each man as an act of terror, to fit the words the president spoke in the rose garden. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Now scram.

Acts of terror is plural because there have been more than one you idiot.

Was 9/11 an act of terror?

9/11 is irrelevant.

Benghazi was ONE act of terror. Should he have referred to it singularly, his words would have been as such: "No act (without the 's') of terror." You've much to learn about the English language, Carbine. It's all in the closing. Not only does he NOT refer to it as an "act of terror" or "act of terrorism" he simply refers to it as a "terrible act."

It's as simple as that.

 

[TemplarKormac]

[ Benghazi was a single act of terror. .

There, you finally acknowledged that Benghazi, specifically, was an act of terror. You are now on the same page the President was on 9/12/12.

Congratulations.

Now you twist my words in one last desperate attempt.

He said "acts" I say "act."

See the difference? When your 48 hours are up, you'll be negged for misquoting me.

 

[JoeB131]

Alas, it is "acts" plural, not "act" singular. Benghazi was a single act of terror. Not multiple acts of terror. So your argument is therefore invalid.

You must be getting pretty desperate when you have to label each man as an act of terror, to fit the words the president spoke in the rose garden. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Now scram.

Acts of terror is plural because there have been more than one you idiot.

Was 9/11 an act of terror?

9/11 is irrelevant.

Benghazi was ONE act of terror. Should he have referred to it singularly, his words would have been as such: "No act (without the 's') of terror." You've much to learn about the English language, Carbine. It's all in the closing. Not only does he NOT refer to it as an "act of terror" or "act of terrorism" he simply refers to it as a "terrible act."

It's as simple as that.

Except that the Benghazi incident wasn't the only "act of terror" going on at the time.

The entire middle east was exploding with rage over this video.

And this is the problem with the "War on Terror" in a nutshell. We have a hard time trying to pretend it is not a "War on Islam" while still expecting Muslims to side with us on it.

especially when certain people can barely contain their anti-Islamic feelings.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Oh, and it just hit me. Obama spent the entirety of his speech before saying "acts of terror" by talking about the events of 9/11/01. Makes all the sense in the world! So, he was referring to 9/11, not Benghazi. Let's put that one paragraph you focus on so intently Carbine, into context.

He starts off by commemorating 9/11. He goes on to tell the story of how he visited the graves of the troops who died fighting the *gasp* WAR ON TERROR. And this is most striking. He then recollects that previous night when he "learned the news of this attack in Benghazi."

Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks. We mourned with the families who were lost on that day. I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed. And then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.


As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.


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. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.
​

He had prime opportunity to refer to Benghazi as a terrorist attack in the first paragraph. But he didn't.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Simple, if Obama wanted to call the Benghazi assault a terrorist attack in that speech, he had plenty of opportunities to do so. Instead, he described it as a "terrible act," a "brutal" act, "senseless violence," and called the attackers "killers," not terrorists. So, Carbine, your argument has been laid to rest. The language of his speech does not suggest he EVER called Benghazi an "act of terror."

Nice try.

 

[billyerock1991]

Well, well, well. What do we have here? It appears that the narrative of Benghazi being a "spontaneous protest brought on by a video" was the work of none other than White House officials.

Newly released emails on the Benghazi terror attack suggest a senior White House aide played a central role in preparing former U.N. ambassador Susan Rice for her controversial Sunday show appearances -- where she wrongly blamed protests over an Internet video.

More than 100 pages of documents were released to the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. Among them was a Sept. 14, 2012, email from Ben Rhodes, an assistant to the president and deputy national security adviser for strategic communications.

The Rhodes email, with the subject line: "RE: PREP Call with Susan: Saturday at 4:00 pm ET," was sent to a dozen members of the administration's inner circle, including key members of the White House communications team such as Press Secretary Jay Carney.

In the email, Rhodes specifically draws attention to the anti-Islam Internet video, without distinguishing whether the Benghazi attack was different from protests elsewhere.

The email lists the following two goals, among others:

"To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy."

"To reinforce the President and Administration's strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges."

The email goes on to state that the U.S. government rejected the message of the Internet video. "We find it disgusting and reprehensible. But there is absolutely no justification at all for responding to this movie with violence," the email stated

Benghazi emails suggest White House aide involved in prepping Rice for ?video? explanation | Fox News

you do realize its I can only tell lies fox news don't you??? on thats right... your brain dead .... my bad!!!

 

[TemplarKormac]

Acts of terror is plural because there have been more than one you idiot.

Was 9/11 an act of terror?

9/11 is irrelevant.

Benghazi was ONE act of terror. Should he have referred to it singularly, his words would have been as such: "No act (without the 's') of terror." You've much to learn about the English language, Carbine. It's all in the closing. Not only does he NOT refer to it as an "act of terror" or "act of terrorism" he simply refers to it as a "terrible act."

It's as simple as that.

Except that the Benghazi incident wasn't the only "act of terror" going on at the time.

The entire middle east was exploding with rage over this video.

And this is the problem with the "War on Terror" in a nutshell. We have a hard time trying to pretend it is not a "War on Islam" while still expecting Muslims to side with us on it.

especially when certain people can barely contain their anti-Islamic feelings.

LOL. Still blaming it on the video. When I have cited multiple sources saying this attack was preplanned, in retaliation for the death of one of their leaders.

Hopeless.