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

[TemplarKormac]

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!!!

You do realize you made no sense, right? Nevermind.

 

[hangover]

Haliburton ? You blather on you fool. You make yourself a joke. Brown and Roots. Vietnam. Johnson as in LBJ. Lady Byrd hired Cheney. Cheney had to give up everything to become VP you idiot.

Not Lady Byrd nor her heirs.

Only an idiot would believe that Cheney doesn't get a cut from every profit Halliburton makes.

Only an idiot believes he does.

You and I both know he does. But like the idiot that you are, you continue to try to defend The Dick's war crimes, like the neo-nazis still defend Hitler.

 

[Meathead]

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

WTF does that mean? I'm guessing a product of elementary US public education trying to articulate convoluted thoughts.

Even by USMB standards, that's a complete failure.

 

[Redfish]

Only an idiot would believe that Cheney doesn't get a cut from every profit Halliburton makes.

Only an idiot believes he does.

You and I both know he does. But like the idiot that you are, you continue to try to defend The Dick's war crimes, like the neo-nazis still defend Hitler.

Yes, Cheney probably owns some Halliburton stock----------I will bet you that Clinton, Obama, Kerry, Biden, and Obama also own stock in that company--------you are really quite naive.

If Cheney committed war crimes so did every member of congress who voted to authroize and fund the stupid Iraq war------every fricken one of them from both parties, including Clinton and Kerry.

I cannot believe how your partisan bigotry has destroyed every one of your working brain cells.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

1. He references acts of terror

2. He refers to the victims of Benghazi as MORE who have been added to those killed in 'acts of terror'.

3. He refers to Benghazi as one of those acts of terror

and after all that you still are capable of pretending that he wasn't calling Benghazi an act of terror.

Fine. You and the 1% of the population who agree with you can form a club or something.

 

[bedowin62]

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.

1. He references acts of terror

2. He refers to the victims of Benghazi as MORE who have been added to those killed in 'acts of terror'.

3. He refers to Benghazi as one of those acts of terror

and after all that you still are capable of pretending that he wasn't calling Benghazi an act of terror.

Fine. You and the 1% of the population who agree with you can form a club or something.

\\

you mean he talked; what else is new leftard?

oh and huge numbers of Americans dont believe obama on anything; including Benghazi

 

[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.

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.

He said acts because Benghazi isn't the only act of terror that has ever occurred against the US.

He then said act referring to Benghazi in order to single it out.

 

[Redfish]

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.

He said acts because Benghazi isn't the only act of terror that has ever occurred against the US.

He then said act referring to Benghazi in order to single it out.

He also said it was the direct result of a video that only a handful of people in the entire world had seen, he knew it was a lie when he said it, it was a cover up for political reasons-------can you say, watergate? but remember, no one died in watergate.

 

[JakeStarkey]

administrations' doctor talking points: fact

an example is the cover up of Pat Tillman's death: fact

more embassy personnel killed under Bush's time than Obama's: fact

both parties are at fault for not compromising in orde to get the embassy better security: fact

the American people think Benghazi is a minor GOP talking point: fact

 

[BlindBoo]

You are fully aware Obama had a super majority in congress.....right?

Lol at you and your bullshit.

He claimed the first thing he was going to do was close it....right?

Lol...

Next

Democrats joined the Republicans in blocking the closing of Gitmo. You don't think there are anti-Obama democrats? He signed his first dreaded EO to close that place. Congress has thus far blocked him from implementing it.

Let's also not forget that Bush had a plan to put them on trial that was blocked by the dems . Let's be clear, the dems and msm made Iraq into a modern Vietnam to gain back congress and the white house. How many times did we have to listen to the democrat lies about no WMDs being found?

Democrats are nothing but traitors to the flag.

Hogwash, the Bush Administration completely fucked up the occupation. It was the Bush Administrations contention that Saddam had reconstituted his WMD programs and was actively producing and stockpiling large quantities of them. No new WMD were ever found, in fact only old dilapidated munitions dating from the time the real traitor, Raygun, was supporting Saddam were ever found.

The lies of course were that Iraq was a threat to the USA and had operational ties with al Qaeda. Those were the only two reasons Congress would allow Bush to use military force against Saddam.

 

[The Rabbi]

Only an idiot would believe that Cheney doesn't get a cut from every profit Halliburton makes.

Only an idiot believes he does.

You and I both know he does. But like the idiot that you are, you continue to try to defend The Dick's war crimes, like the neo-nazis still defend Hitler.

No actually I know nothing of the kind. Neither do you. Only one of us lies about it.
But I'm sure you have some kind of proof handy, right?

 

[Vigilante]

If there is NOTHING TO BENGHAZI, as the regime, and all it's lapdogs claim, WHAT HAVE THEY GOT TO FEAR OVER A THOROUGH INVESTIGATION, without this bullshit?...

THIS TIME she can come back to testify with a more believable explanation!...Such as...

 

[Oldstyle]

administrations' doctor talking points: fact

an example is the cover up of Pat Tillman's death: fact

more embassy personnel killed under Bush's time than Obama's: fact

both parties are at fault for not compromising in orde to get the embassy better security: fact

the American people think Benghazi is a minor GOP talking point: fact

If you'll recall, Jake...Jay Carney stood behind his little podium and stated emphatically that the Obama Administration only changed "one word" in the talking points they got from the CIA. That was a complete and utter lie.

People working at embassies are often killed by terror attacks. Usually they are low level guards or local personnel entering the embassy. Under Obama's watch a US Ambassador and three other Americans were murdered in an assault that lasted for over seven hours with literally no response from this White House. Pathetic attempt to spin a complete failure by the use of misleading statistics!

For about the 20th time...the State Department Head of Libya testified under oath that budget cuts had NOTHING to do with security levels in Benghazi. Blaming what happened on GOP budget cuts is finger pointing rather than taking responsibility for what this Administration did and didn't do in Libya. It's dishonest and unfortunately it's what this White House DOES whenever it fucks up!

 

[Fishlore]

Somewhere between Silly and Desperation lies the Republican fixation on the investigation of "scandals" real and imagined as the party's primary mode of political discourse. It doesn't matter to them that the Benghazi non-scandal has already been scoured to the bottom without finding anything at all. The purpose here is to try and smear Hillary Clinton, who looms over the pathetic roster of Republican presidential candidates for 2016 like Godzilla looming over the Tokyo police.

The GOP platform, deregulation and tax cuts for millionaires, has no market appeal and the party has been unable to come up with an appealing fake program the way the Reagan did so masterfully. As a result, all the Republican effort has gone into trying to tear down the other guy. Mud slinging delights the TEA Party types but it hasn't won a national election in years and the public is getting wise to it, or at the least, bored with it. If the Republicans think they can derail the Clinton juggernaut with some niggle about a White House email, they are even dumber than they sound.

 

[The Rabbi]

Somewhere between Silly and Desperation lies the Republican fixation on the investigation of "scandals" real and imagined as the party's primary mode of political discourse. It doesn't matter to them that the Benghazi non-scandal has already been scoured to the bottom without finding anything at all. The purpose here is to try and smear Hillary Clinton, who looms over the pathetic roster of Republican presidential candidates for 2016 like Godzilla looming over the Tokyo police.

The GOP platform, deregulation and tax cuts for millionaires, has no market appeal and the party has been unable to come up with an appealing fake program the way the Reagan did so masterfully. As a result, all the Republican effort has gone into trying to tear down the other guy. Mud slinging delights the TEA Party types but it hasn't won a national election in years and the public is getting wise to it, or at the least, bored with it. If the Republicans think they can derail the Clinton juggernaut with some niggle about a White House email, they are even dumber than they sound.

Obama lied about the terrorist attack. The only question is why aren't you outraged by this?

 

[HenryBHough]

administrations' doctor talking points: fact

an example is the cover up of Pat Tillman's death: fact

more embassy personnel killed under Bush's time than Obama's: fact

both parties are at fault for not compromising in orde to get the embassy better security: fact

the American people think Benghazi is a minor GOP talking point: fact

RINOs devour regime lies like chocolate ice cream: fact

If RINOs replace Democrats in congress there is no prospect of any difference in the direction America is headed: fact

 

[mudwhistle]

Just for the record, since this is a question about politicizing Benghazi, let's remember who FIRST tried to make it a political issue:

Mitt Romney's comment, ON THE NIGHT OF THE ATTACK:

“It’s disgraceful that the Obama administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.”

...that, of course, was no problem for the ODS'ers.




http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/12/obama-condemns-attack-that-kills-ambassador-to-libya/

He was 100% correct

Obama tried to blame a Coptic Christian and ignored the actual perps, and still does today.

 

[mudwhistle]

[ 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.

We already acknowledged it you fucking idiot.

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

Dude, do you ever check the record before you blurt shit out?...House passes GOP bill to streamline job training

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

1. He references acts of terror

2. He refers to the victims of Benghazi as MORE who have been added to those killed in 'acts of terror'.

3. He refers to Benghazi as one of those acts of terror

and after all that you still are capable of pretending that he wasn't calling Benghazi an act of terror.

Fine. You and the 1% of the population who agree with you can form a club or something.

Actually over half feel he's lying

Jay Carney claimed the Benghazi emails weren't about Benghazi......

It becomes a problem when you have to explain what Obama meant because it's unclear what he meant, and the meaning is subject to change without notice....