Paul Revere by Cyrus Dallin, North End, Boston

~~~

~~~

Healthcare vs

Healthcare vs
Torture

Friday, November 16, 2012

Shame on McCain and the GOP

I'm posting this in answer to the ongoing discussion in the blogpost below.  A few commenters brought up the Benghazi tragedy, and I thought this piece by Steve Benen makes it perfectly clear that UN Ambassador Susan Rice was NOT lying, was NOT covering anything up, and she was certainly NOT, as Senator McCain tried to smear her, incompetent.

Ambassador Rice did her job and she did it well.

Five days after the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Susan Rice appeared on "Face the Nation" to give the public an update on the available information. She explained that it was too early to draw "definitive conclusions," but the "best information we have to date" suggested the violence "began spontaneously ... as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo" in response to the anti-Islam internet video.

The ambassador then added, "But soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that effort with heavy weapons." Asked about a possible al Qaeda role, Rice said this was unclear, explaining, "I think this is one of the things we'll have to determine."

For John McCain and other increasingly-hysterical Obama administration critics, Rice was lying and her use of the word "spontaneous" is itself an outrageous scandal. It's not altogether clear why this is causing far-right apoplexy, but this is where we find ourselves at this point.

In an interesting twist, CBS News obtained the CIA talking points given to Rice in preparation of her interview.
CBS News correspondent Margaret Brennan says the talking points, which were also given to members of the House intelligence committee, make no reference to terrorism being a likely factor in the assault, which left U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans dead. [...]

The CIA's talking points read as follows: "The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US diplomatic post in Benghazi and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations."
In other words, what Rice said is, almost to the syllable, exactly what the combined judgment of the intelligence community believed as of the time of her interview. She wasn't lying; she wasn't incompetent; and she wasn't covering anything up.

Yes, the CIA assessment later changed as more information became available, but that only bolsters what Rice said at the time -- that the search for answers was ongoing.

McCain's smear campaign simply isn't based on facts. The senator owes Rice an apology.


Kevin Drum:

Yep. They're just convinced that Obama runs a gang of Chicago thugs who are lying and cheating behind the scenes at every opportunity. It's a foundational story on the tea-party right. Unfortunately, the reality is that whatever else you think of Obama, he's one of the straightest arrows we've had in the White House since ... forever. He runs a tight ship organizationally, and on a personal level he's so intolerant of personal peccadilloes that he sometimes seems almost inhuman. It would be astonishing if he could actually avoid a serious scandal for an entire eight-year term, but if anyone can do it, it's probably Obama.

And yes, it's driving Republicans crazy.



MORE:

"Rep. Peter King (R-NY) has admitted that the CIA and intelligence community approved U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice’s talking points before she made her much-derided Sept. 16 appearance on several Sunday news shows to discuss the attacks in Benghazi. King, one of the most outspoken critics of the Obama administration’s response to the attack, came to his conclusion following testimony from former CIA Director David Petraeus.

After leaving the closed-door hearing, King spoke with reporters for several minutes about Petraeus’ statements. Rice’s television appearances were among the topics discussed, leading King to indicate that while Petraeus did not personally write Rice’s talking points, the CIA did approve them."



All of the posturing by the GOP on this tragedy is nothing more than political gamesmanship.  And John McCain proved it by grandstanding in front of the cameras, losing his temper, when asked why he chose to come out with attitude to smear Ambassador Rice's reputation instead of actually attending a meeting that dealt with the Benghazi attack.  Asked why he didn't attend the meeting on the Benghazi attack, McCain bellowed at the reporter who dared to ask him, and then  had a meltdown because he was caught with his ugly-colored partisanship pants down around his ankles.

More here:

Benghazi is not a scandal

42 comments:

Silverfiddle said...

I know you enjoy ripping the latest Obama propaganda off of the teletype and brandishing it in out faces shouting "See! See!" but the jury's still out. Time will reveal the truth.

Anonymous said...

The facts won't stop people like KP, SF, or RN from crying cover-up, murder, and other insane accusations, which they started (like Romney) the day it happened.
Good luck with convincing them.

News Flash said...

WASHINGTON -- Just four years ago, John McCain was the leader of the GOP. Today, he's the highest-ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, a perch from which the former fighter pilot is deeply engaged in the national conversation over war, terrorism and intelligence gathering.

But in January, the Arizona senator will lose his top-ranking committee seat due to term limits. The only ranking Republican spot available to him next session will be on the Indian Affairs Committee.

Unless, that is, the Senate creates a brand-new select committee. On Wednesday, McCain, flanked by Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.), proposed just that: a select committee with extensive authority to investigate the Benghazi, Libya, attack and the U.S. government's response.

Shaw Kenawe said...

SF: "I know you enjoy ripping the latest Obama propaganda off of the teletype and brandishing it in out faces shouting "See! See!" but the jury's still out. Time will reveal the truth."

That is the best example of what this Benghazi issue is all about. For the GOP it's their fondest hope for a scandal, and as each one of their paranoid theories proves wrong, they'll have another until time reveals that this was a terrible tragedy and NOT a deliberate cover-up of anything.

The GOP has allowed their Obama Derangement Syndrome to turn them all into scandal sniffing crazies.

It's very unattractive.

LOL Anonymous said...

"It would appear that the huge scandal here is that the Administration may have known more about events in Benghazi than they immediately announced, although they were saying some of it right away, which is horrible because they either were confused and said they needed to find out more, or they were less confused than they let on, but misled the public by saying they were still finding out what happened. Such horrible lies. In any case, it is becoming increasingly clear that Barack Obama failed to be omniscient on Benghazi, and should therefore stop claiming to be the Messiah. INPEACH!"

Rational Nation USA said...

" News Flash said...

WASHINGTON -- Just four years ago, John McCain was the leader of the GOP. Today, he's the highest-ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, a perch from which the former fighter pilot is deeply engaged in the national conversation over war, terrorism and intelligence gathering.

But in January, the Arizona senator will lose his top-ranking committee seat due to term limits. The only ranking Republican spot available to him next session will be on the Indian Affairs Committee.

Unless, that is, the Senate creates a brand-new select committee. On Wednesday, McCain, flanked by Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.), proposed just that: a select committee with extensive authority to investigate the Benghazi, Libya, attack and the U.S. government's response."

More Big Republican Government. Damn they're working overtime to actually outdo the progressive democract Big Government scheme.

Isn't the charades getting old folks?

Rational Nation USA said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
BB-Idaho said...

It is hard to imagine the motivation behind McCain et. al.
Nicest thing I can say is they are
damned hypocrites .

Rational Nation USA said...

"The facts won't stop people like KP, SF, or RN from crying cover-up, murder, and other insane accusations..."

Give it up Anon the knowledgeable. People who read, as well as think for themselves understand your are nothing more than than a voice box for your chosen special interest.

Shaw, does the show fit?

Anonymous said...

"The CIA asked Congress & the White House not to refer to the Benghazi attacks as terrorism "to avoid revealing to insurgents that American intelligence agencies were eavesdropping on their electronic communications." Republicans in congress knew this, even as they attacked Obama for it. (nytimes.com)"

Shaw Kenawe said...

Here's more of that "truth" that time has revealed for you SF:

"Rep. Peter King (R-NY) has admitted that the CIA and intelligence community approved U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice’s talking points before she made her much-derided Sept. 16 appearance on several Sunday news shows to discuss the attacks in Benghazi. King, one of the most outspoken critics of the Obama administration’s response to the attack, came to his conclusion following testimony from former CIA Director David Petraeus.

After leaving the closed-door hearing, King spoke with reporters for several minutes about Petraeus’ statements. Rice’s television appearances were among the topics discussed, leading King to indicate that while Petraeus did not personally write Rice’s talking points, the CIA did approve them."


The extremists on the right keep making fools of themselves trying to find a scandal to smear the Obama administration.

Susan Rice was not lying or covering up anything.

You were right, SF, the truth was revealed. Only not the one you were hoping for.


Shaw Kenawe said...

PS. John McCain is an old fool.

His demeaning remarks about Ambassador Susan Rice were completely wrong.

S.W. Anderson said...

It's clear to me McCain harbors deep personal animosity, maybe outright hatred, for Susan Rice. I seem to recall he has made caustic remarks about her before. Maybe she made remarks about him that got back to him or he feels she didn't show him the proper respect during a hearing or when she was interviewed before taking her current post. That's part of what's going on.

I'm sure of two reasons so many Republicans, Fox and the rest of the right-wing noise machine are flogging the Benghazi attack.

First, Republicans can't stand having a Democrat in the White House. When it happens, they always manufacture a scandal. Their wet dreams center around either removing a Democratic president through impeachment or driving him to resign in disgrace. Thus, during the Clinton years they manufactured the Whitewater scandal, costing taxpayers $80 million plus over six years. Then there was troopergate, which imploded when the troopers admitted they had been paid to lie. Then, there was the Lewinsky scandal, which Clinton asked for. During Obama's first term, Republicans tried and tried to blow Solyndra into a scandal of epic proportions, but no one else saw a scandal there, because there was no scandal there.

Now, Eureka! They've found it: Benghazi! Except that today Petraeus' testimony completely vindicated Susan Rice, and left John McCain looking like the cranky old goat he's become. With egg on his face, yet. They will keep trying with Benghazi for awhile anyway. When that doesn't work, they will brew up something else. It's a compulsion.

The other thing going on with Benghazi is that ever since the election, news cycle after news cycle has been filled with bad publicity for Republicans. They're desperate to get the focus off their epic-fail setbacks and on to something negative about Obama and his administration. Benghazi was all they could come up with, lame though their charges and innuendo were.

Shaw Kenawe said...

SWA,

Look at the first comment in this thread and understand how desperately' the extreme right hopes for a scandal.

Petraeus's testimony set their dreams of impeachment back. But they won't relent. They'll find something to smear the administration if it takes them the next four years.

McCain's behavior should disgust every fair-minded American. He's become a cranky old goat.

It's been wonderful to see how the women in Congress have come to defend Susan Rice against his disgraceful, unfounded smears.

We knew things would get nasty after Romney's defeat; this is an example of that nastiness.

Anonymous said...

McCain, King, and other Republicans came out of the closed door meeting with Petraus and in front of cameras and microphones stated; that Ms. Rice was not told it was a terrorist attack, on purpose. Not because of some nefarious cover up, but because of normal procedures and protocols to protect CIA sources.
Republicans seemed annoyed but satisfied with the Generals answer, because it is normal protocol and procedure for the CIA to protect its sources.
Apology for Ms. Rice? NO!

Rational Nation USA said...

@ Shaw...

"Petraeus's testimony set their dreams of impeachment back. But they won't relent. They'll find something to smear the administration if it takes them the next four years."

and

"We knew things would get nasty after Romney's defeat; this is an example of that nastiness."

Forgive my cynicism but are the quoted statements preparatory in the sense if the President's next four years don't go well for him they will constitute rEpublicans are responsible #3 meme?

Look, we have huge problems that threaten the fiscal stability of this nation, budget crises one after the other as we kick the can down the road each time just delaying disaster. A national debt that is incomprehensible to most and it continues to grow. We continue to support military action that often makes little to no sense.

Do I believe the President's policies and actions have been misguided in many ways? Sure I do, and I'll continue to point those things out. But realistically, at the end of the day Nov.6th the President won reelection. Maybe not by a landslide but significantly enough that as Americans we need to support the agenda Americans in majority share voted for.

It is reasonable to continue civil debate and express differences of opinion based on ones principles and beliefs. We should all be very happy that in this land, and at this time we are able to do so.

Supporting the President, while expressing ones opinions on specific issues should be considered a patriotic and American thing to do. Should it not Shaw?

There will always be time and opportunity to disagree. Hell, anytime two or more people are present disagreements will happen. The goal should always be to find a equitable and rational way to resolve the conflict.

So, the President won, it is what it is. It is now time to focus on the bigger problems of our budget and national debt, as well as our continued costly involvement in war, including thew war on drugs.

For disgruntled rEpublicans, get over it. Support the President while pointing out issues of concern. Because if the situation is not improved by 2016 I am sure election results may show a different outcome. In the meantime lets not stand in the way of attempting to right the ship. Continuing to be viewed as obstructionists by over 50% of the voting public should send a message. rEpublicans and their party should listen.

There is always the Libertarian Party, the Whig party, and the Green party for those who have had it with the two major parties. I'll continue to be a third party guy, but in the meantime I hope the two big statist parties start working together to resolve the big picture problems.

OUR GRANDCHILDREN ARE DEPENDING ON US.

BB-Idaho said...

Interesting, McCain's incisive judgement of women.
2008:
"We've got a spectacular running mate here that has really captured America," the Arizona senator told "World News" anchor Charles Gibson in an exclusive interview in St. Paul today. McCain said that his choice has "an incredible resume including a beautiful family."
"She is experienced, she's talented, she knows how to lead and she has been vetted by the people of the state of Alaska," McCain said.
"Americans are going to be very, very, very pleased," McCain said. "She's really going to have a remarkable impact on the American people. … I'm very excited."
Nov 2012:
“She’s not qualified. Anyone who goes on national television and in defiance of the facts, five days later — We’re all responsible for what we say and what we do. I’m responsible to my voters. She’s responsible to the Senate of the United States. We have our responsibility for advice and consent.”
“I will do everything in my power to block her from being the United States Secretary of State. She has proven that she either doesn’t understand or she is not willing to accept evidence on its face.”
C'mon, John-heck, even I can see the difference between a Rhodes Scholar PhD and a bimbo bumpkin....

Republican Racism said...

As RN continues his false attacks about Benghazi today.

Shaw Kenawe said...

SK wrote: "Petraeus's testimony set their dreams of impeachment back. But they won't relent. They'll find something to smear the administration if it takes them the next four years."

and

"We knew things would get nasty after Romney's defeat; this is an example of that nastiness."

RN wrote: "Forgive my cynicism but are the quoted statements preparatory in the sense if the President's next four years don't go well for him they will constitute rEpublicans are responsible #3 meme?"

You missed the point completely. IIRC, you were among many rightwing bloggers who hopped on the Benghazi conspiracy wagon as soon as you could, and you're still riding it.

No less than General Petraeus has testified that Ambassador Rice reported EXACTLY what the CIA asked to to report, for national security reasons.

That you're still questioning this when Rice has been vindicated and people like McCain have rotten egg all over his face, is an example of my prediction that the rightwingers want a scandal so badly they can feel it tingling up their legs, and they won't stop until they get one.

Perhaps they need to look elsewhere for their thrills. They could start with the Kelley sisters. I hear people say they're hawt!

Rational Nation USA said...

Right Shaw. No you miss the point.

KP said...

Relative to Benghazi -- there are several issues or non issues and this thread is only commenting on one of them.

We could broaden the discussion to
BEFORE // DURING // and AFTER.

What would some of the discussion look like if we look at the larger picture?

AFTER:

1) Susan Rice: whether her comments that were given to her by the CIA, and/or the DOJ and Sec State were accurate or inaccurate: (a) was what she was told as talking points advisable (b) how do they compare to what has come to light since then and does it matter if they are slightly different. These are the least important issues of all the Benghazi issues and the ones the President appears to have the most latitude on. Any softening of the message delivered by Rice will fall on the CIA, DOJ or Sec State (or some combination of them). If they were less than accurate; was that prudent and part of normal procedure or were her comments softened for reasons other than American security (as in need to know). Like I said, relatively, this is not an important issue. Rice doesn’t look great doing the bidding of the administration in this way but it’s not a career ender and there is no scandal from what I can tell. The decision to package the message on the Sunday shows the way it was looks like a judgment call. My gut says it was to soften the message to the country and fit the “Al Qaeda dead GM alive narrative”; and so what? Not a big deal. And if it was for security reasons I am good with that as well. President Obama and Sec Clinton seem to have packaged their post event messages in a way that fit their narrative as well. I find this more troubling than Rice’s comments as she was a pawn of theirs.

BEFORE:

2)Was the level of security sufficient at the consulate given earlier attacks, the fact that it was Sept 11th, the UK consulate had been closed due to violence and an attempted assassination of another ambassador; our ambassador had apparently requested additional security and our intelligence seems to have confirmed we would not be able to defend the consulate if a coordinated attack took place. The city was not under the control of the local government and Al Qaeda flags flew over some buildings. This is a very big deal as four Americans (an ambassador, two ex-SEALS and a civilian) were killed. When will the CIA, Hillary Clinton and or President Obama address the country on this issue in a way that clears up an ugly chapter of foreign service?

DURING:

3)What happened during the fire fights that lasted for seven hours? Why was there so little done in an obvious way to save lives? Were Doherty and Woods told to stand down? With the level of training SEAL team members get, they would not normally train a laser on a mortar position unless they thought help was coming to access the laser and hone in on the position. Why? Because the laser gives away their position. After seven hours, was this a move of desperation or anticipation?

Why didn’t we scramble air cover? Where was the President during those seven hours?

I understand there is a possibility the President didn’t know this was a terrorist attack; but if that is true one has to wonder if that cracks the door for a charge of malfeasance for those charged with updating him with intelligence. I hope he attended that meeting.

I don’t care to see a smear campaign; but I do want to know the truth, eventually. It may take years, like the Iran Contra affair. That’s okay.

In the meantime, can we get a deal done to avoid sequestration?!

Rational Nation USA said...

"In the meantime, can we get a deal done to avoid sequestration?!"

Likely not KP, both side are enjoying the bullshit entirely too much.

Eh Shaw?

KP said...

RN, I posted (I think yesterday) that I don't think a deal will be done either based on the rhetoric have heard the least couple days. I hope it's all bluster that proceeds all mediation processes. We will see.

At this point, I am almost ready to accept sequestration just so that these craphead politicians have to play in their own pooh.

Rational Nation USA said...

Put up a cartoon today at my site, I feel much as you do KP.

Silverfiddle said...

My prediction? Burned Rice

skudrunner said...


Benghazi is not a scandal and McCain owes Rice an apology.

You are right on both counts. It was only four Americans killed and the way the Republicans are portraying it, you would think that mattered.

McCain should apologize to Rice. All she did way outright lie to the American people about the events surrounding the attack so the administration didn't look incompetent.

They are trying to make this into a big deal with investigations and accusations but we have to keep in mind, it was only four Americans killed.

Guess Hillary was right about what will you do when that 3am call comes in. presbo took the correct action, go back to sleep because there are fundraisers that need attention.

Shaw Kenawe said...



skudrunner: "You are right on both counts. It was only four Americans killed and the way the Republicans are portraying it, you would think that mattered."

What happened in Benghazi does matter. It was a terrible tragedy. But the rightwing's obsession with finding scandal to poison the political landscape is a real scandal. This is the way the rightwing does politics: SMEAR CAMPAIGNS.

skudrunner: "McCain should apologize to Rice. All she did way outright lie to the American people about the events surrounding the attack so the administration didn't look incompetent."

That is a rightwing lie.


Rice said exactly what the CIA told her to say at the time because of security issues.

If you keep coming here and repeating your lie, you will be deleted. I tolerated your nonsense on the "you didn't build that," when you came here day after day and repeated that false interpretation of what the president meant. You won't get to do the same with Susan Rice.

General Petraeus vindicated what she said as what she was told to say. Your and SF's inability to accept that is proof of both that both of you want a scandal so desperately you're leaving long ropey saliva trails everywhere you comment.







Shaw Kenawe said...

Leonard Pitts of the Miami Herald sums up skudrunner's and other rightwingers salivating for scandal:

[They act] "as if this were all a game, as if their nonstop litany of half truths, untruths and fear mongering, their echo chamber of studied outrage, practiced panic, intellectual incoherence and unadulterated equine feculence, had no human consequences. Sometimes, they behave as if it were morally permissible — indeed, morally required — to say whatever asinine, indefensible, coarse or outrageous thing comes to mind in the name of defeating or diminishing the dreaded left."

Rational Nation USA said...

"[They act] "as if this were all a game, as if their nonstop litany of half truths, untruths and fear mongering, their echo chamber of studied outrage, practiced panic, intellectual incoherence and unadulterated equine feculence, had no human consequences. Sometimes, they behave as if it were morally permissible — indeed, morally required — to say whatever asinine, indefensible, coarse or outrageous thing comes to mind in the name of defeating or diminishing the dreaded left."

Hm, don't often find myself in agreement with Pitts, but he does have a point. Questioning the administration and suspecting a possible cover up is okay, indeed necessary, it is the way it works.

There does come a point in which you recognize you were in error, accept the outcome as it is, and move on to helping solve other very large problems (debt and deficits) and prevent the nation from going ove the cliff into the abyss.

I would add the same remarks might be turned 180 degrees at times. But we won't talk about that now will we.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Gen. Petraeus:

"David H. Petraeus, the former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, told lawmakers on Friday that classified intelligence reports revealed that the deadly assault on the American diplomatic mission in Libya was a terrorist attack, but that the administration refrained from saying it suspected that the perpetrators of the attack were Al Qaeda affiliates and sympathizers to avoid tipping off the groups.

Mr. Petraeus, who resigned last week after admitting to an extramarital affair, said the names of groups suspected in the attack — including Al Qaeda’s franchise in North Africa and a local Libyan group, Ansar al-Shariah — were removed from the public explanation of the attack immediately after the assault to avoiding alerting the militants that American intelligence and law enforcement agencies were tracking them, lawmakers said."


Meanwhile, I've noticed a rightwing blog that has put up a post discrediting self-promoting US generals--a not-so-subtle way of trying to discredit the once lionized hero of the Right, General Petraeus, and his testimony that vindicates Susan Rice.



Anonymous said...

"There does come a point in which you recognize you were in error, accept the outcome as it is, and move on to helping solve other very large problems (debt and deficits) and prevent the nation from going ove the cliff into the abyss."

You spend your time building the lie. Now that you have been proven wrong, no apologies, just move on to the next "chicken little" cry of dishonesty, no matter who gets hurt.
Those who jump to conclusions before the facts are in besmirching the reputation of good people need to learn civility, not those trying to protect a good, innocent person(s).

Silverfiddle said...

Suspecting that politicians may be playing politics with current events is hardly engaging in conspiracy theories. All sides do it all the time.

I think they are all SOBs and I don't trust any of them, included the ones on "my" side.

Team sport politics and naively lapping up whatever your political hero says is the sure path to destruction.

To understand my Sunday post, you must follow the links to essays by Peggy Noonan and Andrew Sullivan, two intelligent, thoughtful and observant writers.

IMHO, the US military could end up blowing the hard-earned trust of the people thanks to a lack of humility and a growing cohort of hypocritical and self-aggrandizing jack wagons.

Silverfiddle said...

I think DiFi is striking the proper tone.

This is not settled. I also think the old saying applies here: Never attribute to malfeasance what can be more easily chalked up to incompetence.

The entire administration is in over its head. God help us.

Anonymous said...

John McCain picked Sarah Palin as his running mate. What more does anyone need to know about the man's judgement? McCain is a legitimate war hero but, sadly, that does not mean he's an honest man.

ORAXX

Shaw Kenawe said...

Oh stop with the theatrics.

Every administration in the history of this country has dealt with tragedies like this.

Your partisan petticoats are showing in your eagerness to trash the entire administration on every issue it has dealt with in 4 years.

That's just absurd and, worse, biased nonsense.

With people like you going hysterical and overreacting to what has happened during every administration, we need more than some god's help.

Rational Nation USA said...

It has been said God helps those who help themselves. Whether or not there is some God helping oneself seems to make sense.

I'm sure Anon you in all your maturity will have a commemt in response.

Silverfiddle said...

Hysterics? Examples?

Shaw Kenawe said...


SK: "Oh stop with the theatrics."

SF: "Hysterics? Examples?"

SF: "The entire administration is in over its head. God help us."

"...you enjoy ripping the latest Obama propaganda off of the teletype and brandishing it in out faces shouting 'See! See!' "

It's called hyperbole. Just using the same rhetorical device as you.

skudrunner said...

I fully understand your outrage on my comments.

Rice's Sunday talk shows could have served the same purpose had she have said they didn't have enough information to make a judgement. Instead she says something that has proven to be false.

Shaw Kenawe said...

skudrunner, when you've worked for years in the CIA, I'll take your opinion as informed. Until then, it's nothing more than a biased opinion about an administration and president you clearly dislike.

I'm not going to publish any more of your comments, which BTW, you've backed up with absolutely nothing.

This is not going to turn into your tedious "Obama hates small businesses" lie you kept peddling here.

Thanks.

Shaw Kenawe said...

From Politico:

"House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers said Sunday that he’s sure there was no intelligence failure in response to the attacks in Benghazi that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.

Rogers, in his first public comments to the press since multiple rounds of classified briefings with top intelligence officials on Capitol Hill, said intelligence officials had accurately determined almost immediately after the Sept. 11 attacks that terrorists were behind the assault.

“I’ll tell you, with a high degree of confidence today, there was no intelligence failure,” the Michigan Republican said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “They had it right, and they had it right early.”

The problem came, according to Rogers, when the final set of unclassified talking points emerged and references to potential terrorist activity were removed, instead blaming a “spontaneous” demonstration on an anti-Islam film.

“There was a narrative that was not consistent with the intelligence we had,” Rogers said.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said lawmakers will investigate why the references to potential terrorist involvement were erased before the talking points were given to Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations who went on the Sunday shows on Sept. 16 to speak on the attacks.

But Feinstein was adamant that the White House was not involved in removing the reference to terrorists.

“There was only one thing that was changed … and that was, the word ‘consulate’ was changed to ‘mission,’” Feinstein said. “That’s the only change that anyone in the White House made, and I have checked this out.”

Silverfiddle said...

Who removed the talking points?

Having said that, it is within the administration's purview to shape the narrative however they want. All administrations do it.

What happened was they got out of sync, becoming a self-contradictory tower of babel, pointing again to incompetence, not malfeasance.

BTW, we still don't know who is responsible for turning down Ambassador Stevens' request for more security.

We also still don't have the timeline. The President says he issued an order to do everything possible to rescue the ambassador and his staff. So why hasn't anyone been fired for disobeying a presidential order?