CNN's Jake Tapper reports:
CNN has obtained an e-mail sent by a top aide to President Barack Obama about White House reaction to the deadly attack last September 11 on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, that apparently differs from how sources characterized it to two different media organizations.
The actual e-mail from then-Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes appears to show that whomever leaked it did so in a way that made it appear that the White House was primarily concerned with the State Department's desire to remove references and warnings about specific terrorist groups so as to not bring criticism to the department.
Rhodes, White House communications director Jennifer Palmieri, and White House press secretary Jay Carney, could not be reached for comment.
In the e-mail sent on Friday, September 14, 2012, at 9:34 p.m., obtained by CNN from a U.S. government source, Rhodes wrote:
“All – “Sorry to be late to this discussion. We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation.
“There is a ton of wrong information getting out into the public domain from Congress and people who are not particularly informed. Insofar as we have firmed up assessments that don’t compromise intel or the investigation, we need to have the capability to correct the record, as there are significant policy and messaging ramifications that would flow from a hardened mis-impression. “We can take this up tomorrow morning at deputies.”
The email is HERE.
"Just an early, failing attempt to smear Hillary for 2016. Because the GOP has no relevant policies for our times, just politics."
The GOP in its hysterical reaction to the Benghazi attacks and its maniacal desire to make the whole tragedy into an impeachable offense and a career-ender for Secretary Clinton, has made themselves into a carload of clowns. Their unrelenting pursuit of vengeance in this whole affair is emblematic of everything the GOP has done, and still tries to do, since Mr. Obama won the presidency in November 2008.
The whole sordid mess on the GOP side has been nothing more than a campaign to slander Secretary Clinton and bring down Mr. Obama's presidency. There was no interest in finding out where the security failed and how to prevent such failures in volatile Middle East countries so that we never have to endure more tragedy. This was never a goal of the GOP. What they wanted was SCANDAL! SCANDAL! SCANDAL! And even if it meant looking for fire where there was only smoke and misrepresenting what actually happened, so what! The ends justify the means for a party that is so marinated in hatred for this president that they've lost all reason.
"So whoever leaked the inaccurate information earlier this month did so in a way that made it appear that the White House – specifically Rhodes – was more interested in the State Department’s concerns, and more focused on the talking points, than the e-mail actually stated."
Charlie Pierce gets it---perfectly:
"Since it appears that we are going to have ourselves an entire summer of this kind of nonsense, I think it's important to identify which journalists now have the right to complain about it.
If you ever took Jim McDougal or David Hale or any of the other Arkansas travelers seriously in the 1990's, you don't get to complain about Darrell Issa now.
If you ever spread any of the mendacious twaddle about Al Gore during the 2000 election — this includes the offal about Love Story, and Love Canal, and inventing the Internet, and where he lived as a boy, and anything at all to do with a Buddhist temple — you don't get to complain about the "culture of scandal" that is paralyzing the government.
If you ever returned a phone call from David Bossie, shut up.
If you ever said anything positive about Matt Drudge, leave the room.
If you ever laundered oppo research from Roger Stone, or Lucianne Goldberg, or Enron Ed Gillespie, or Ed Rollins, or any of the other well-compensated ratfkers of the Right, shut up, leave the room, and throw yourselves into the river. This also goes for any cable booker who ever booked Ann Coulter, or called Andrew Breitbart an 'activist' or, worse, a 'journalist.'
Ratfking has a long history in American politics, and I'd be loath to preside over its disappearance. Politics would become remarkably boring. However, we used to know what it was, and what to do with the people when they got caught practicing it. We used to be able to distinguish ratfking from actual reporting. That all fell apart during the Clinton years, when we had some genuine ratfking going on under the color of an independent counsel's office in the Department Of Justice, and also in the offices of several congresscritters, and when it all culminated in the single greatest ratfk of them all — the second impeachment of a sitting president in the country's history. If you were part of enabling all that, you have no right to complain about the circus now. You were the ones who trained the elephants in the first place."
DAVID BROOKS:
"Let’s review the actual events. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens was killed on Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2012. For this there is plenty of blame to go around. We now know, thanks to reporting by Eric Schmitt, Helene Cooper and Michael Schmidt in The Times, that Benghazi was primarily a C.I.A. operation.
Furthermore, intelligence officers underestimated how dangerous the situation was. They erred in vetting the Libyan militia that was supposed to provide security. The next day, Nuland held a background press briefing, a transcript of which is available on the State Department’s Web site. She had two main points. There’s a lot we don’t know. The attack was conducted by Libyan extremists. She made no claim that it was set off by an anti-Muslim video or arose spontaneously from demonstrations.
On Friday, Sept. 14, David Petraeus, then the director of the C.I.A., gave a classified briefing to lawmakers in Congress. The lawmakers asked him to provide talking points so they could discuss the event in the news media. C.I.A. analysts began work on the talking points. Early drafts, available on Jonathan Karl’s ABC News Web site, reflect the confused and fragmented state of knowledge.
The first draft, like every subsequent one, said the Benghazi attacks were spontaneously inspired by protests in Cairo. It also said that extremists with ties to Al Qaeda participated. The C.I.A. analysts quickly scrubbed references to Al Qaeda from the key part of the draft, investigators on Capitol Hill now tell me. On Friday evening of Sept. 14, the updated talking points were e-mailed to the relevant officials in various departments, including Nuland. She wondered why the C.I.A. was giving members of Congress talking points that were far more assertive than anything she could say or defend herself.
She also noted that the talking points left the impression that the C.I.A. had issued all sorts of warnings before the attack. Remember, this was at a moment when the State Department was taking heat for what was mostly a C.I.A. operation, while doing verbal gymnastics to hide the C.I.A.’s role. Intentionally or not, the C.I.A. seemed to be repaying the favor by trying to shift blame to the State Department for ignoring intelligence.
Nuland didn’t seek to rewrite the talking points. In fact, if you look at the drafts that were written while she was sending e-mails, the drafts don’t change much from one to the next. She was just kicking the process up to the policy-maker level. At this point, Nuland’s participation in the whole affair ends."
THE REST IS HERE.
Now let's sit back and watch the GOP and the media turn themselves into splenetic gargoyles over the next batch of reasons to INPEACH! President Obama.
I have a very strong feeling they'll end up looking like the scandal mongering elephants that they are.
But they know it's a SCANDAL!!!!!!!1111!!!!!!
"From a new PPP poll: Of the 41 percent of Republicans who consider Benghazi to be the worst political scandal in American history, 39 percent are unaware that Benghazi is located in Libya. 10 percent said it’s in Egypt, 9 percent in Iran, 6 percent in Cuba, 5 percent in Syria, 4 percent in Iraq, and 1 percent each in North Korea and Liberia, with 4 percent unwilling to venture a guess."
Meanwhile, to the eternal disappointment of the GOP:
51 comments:
Dirty Tricks. It's what the GOP is very, very good at:
"The media echo chamber has run amok again, this time misquoting and inaccurately paraphrasing a newly-obtained email from White House aide Ben Rhodes about Benghazi.
CNN host Jake Tapper reports that ABC News and numerous other media outlets issued misinformed characterizations of the email, to make it appear that the White House wanted Benghazi talking points changed so that the State Department would suffer less criticism.
Media outlets like Fox News took these misquotes and ran with them, accusing the White House of being more interested in "political cover for all the agencies and not about the truth."
Sigh.
Isn't there something, anything more important for the country to focus on?
Meanwhile, over at the IRS...
Ah! Cased closed, then!
Good work, Shaw!
Republican ineptitude floats to the surface once again in the GOP shit bucket.
"Just an early, failing attempt to smear Hillary for 2016. Because the GOP has no relevant policies for our times, just politics."
-----
Whoda thunk it
Anon, no one says the case is closed. That's your cynical take.
This post shows that the media made the Benghazi tragedy look worse than it was for political reasons, and the opposition ran with it.
"Tapper notes how ABC and the Weekly Standard covered the leaked emails, which were “paraphrased” “inaccurately” and “inventing the notion” that the White House tried to protect the State Department:
Whoever provided those quotes and paraphrases did so inaccurately, seemingly inventing the notion that Rhodes wanted the concerns of the State Department specifically addressed. Nuland, particularly, had expressed a desire to remove mentions of specific terrorist groups and CIA warnings about the increasingly dangerous assignment. Rhodes put no emphasis at all in his email on the State Department’s concerns.
Previous reporting also misquoted Rhodes as saying the group would work through the talking points at the deputies meeting on Saturday, September 15, when the talking points to Congress were finalized. While the previously written subject line of the email mentions talking points, Rhodes only addresses misinformation in a general sense.
Tapper condemned the leaker as having the agenda to make the White House look like they were protecting the State Department."
Why does RN ask if there is anything more important for the country to focus on? He authored his own post on the topic, so apparently he thinks it is important enough for the readers of his blog to discuss (the majority of whom are absolutely outraged over the Obama administration's "lies").
The IRS thing is no biggie either. Turns out a bush appointee was in charge at the time. And Obama had absolutely no knowledge they were targeting Tea bagger groups. In any case, nonprofits aren't supposed to engage in political campaigning.
There is no doubt that the Obama administration has some squirm room with regard to Benghazi.
Nevertheless, the standing down of our military in North Africa is enough to require an inquiry as to who order that standing down.
The position of "We couldn't get there in time" doesn't make strategic sense, IMO.
Perceptions do matter, and standing down like that sent a message of weakness to the terrorists who attacked the consulate and murdered a United States ambassador.
Hillary's statement before Congress -- her shouting with her arms waving -- put me off. In fact, such a statement and such arm waving from anyone testifying before Congress puts me off -- no matter the political affiliation.
IMO, Hillary Clinton did herself a lot of damage in those few minutes.
Of course, the Republicans are looking for a scandal. Scandals are the plague of most 2nd term Presidents. Furthermore, opposing parties are always looking for scandals on each other. Such is politics. Such politics has likey always been.
Does the Obama administration have squirm room with regard to the other issues in the news right now? See THIS in the Boston Herald.
At 8:30 P.M., the White House issued a condemnation of the surveillance of the AP. For a statement to be released at that late hour of the evening is indicative of the seriousness of the matter, IMO.
D.C. turns on Obama
Obama's dangerous new narrative
Last link from me today as I have to get ready to go to work: ...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.”
(You can view this segment of the interview below. A key question is what the president meant when he said “right.” Was this agreement with Kroft or just verbal acknowledgment? It is a bit in the eye of the beholder, but we lean toward agreement that he avoided using “terrorism.” For unknown reasons, CBS did not release this clip until just two days before the elections, and it attracted little notice at the time because Superstorm Sandy dominated the news.)...
Yes, we know what the media is saying about President Obama.
What is interesting about all the links is that they are so abundant and widespread, aren't they?
So how does all this negativity about Mr. Obama square with the right's insistence that "the media" are in his pocket?
Where is that narrative I've heard over the past 4 1/2 years?
Can it be untrue? If the media were in Mr. Obama's "pocket," how then to explain the feeding frenzy on these issues being reported in all the media?
Can it be that now that Mr. Obama is in some trouble and that trouble is reported all over the place that those who claimed the media protects Mr. Obama have been wrong? And blinded by their biases? I don't hear any complaints just now on this.
I fully understand that all two-term presidents have to deal with some scandal, afterall, thousands and thousands of people work in the administration, and that means someone, somewhere, is going to mess up, and the president has to take responsibility.
But as I watch the events unfold, I'm also reminded of Mr. Obama's immediate predecessor, GWB, and President Clinton, and the right's idol, Ronald Reagan.
The two Republican presidents, Bush and Reagan, had horrendous scandals during their administrations--Iran-Contra resulted in indictments of several of Reagan's top advisors and officials, and we certainly remember the Halliburton scandals, the outing of CIA agent, Valerie Plame, the inept scandal of Katrina, and the indictment of Tom Delay, and many more.
We all remember the many scandals that came out during Clinton's administration, one of which resulted in his impeachment but not his resignation.
Clinton seems to be doing just fine, and his presidency is seen as a good era in our recent history.
Ronald Reagan's many scandals did nothing to tarnish his reputation in his admirers' eyes, did it. And so far, Iran-Contra was much worse than what Mr. Obama is dealing with, the frenzy of the right notwithstanding.
So I'm not that concerned. I'll wait to see the facts come out, find out who in the IRS was behind the decision to follow the 501 groups (it wasn't the president, I'm sure, but someone who made a very poor decision).
The Benghazi controversy is still bubbling up because of whether or not Mr. Obama said "terror" or "terrorist attack," or "act of terror?" Seriously? People are strange. What should be bothering them is why the military were not able to send support and why the CIA and State handled it so poorly.
I know the right is delighted over these events and the possible harm it will cause Mr. Obama.
But, as recent history has proved, it won't be as awful and as destructive to him as the right is hoping it will be.
He'll be just fine once things are sorted out, and that's what I'm concentrating on.
If the media are in Mr. Obama's pocket, then how could this have happened?
"After Jake Tapper exposed ABC’s Benghazi email scoop as edited to make Obama look bad, ABC News admitted that they lied to America. They never actually read the original emails."
In their May 10th exclusive, ABC News claimed that they had obtained the Benghazi emails, “ABC News has obtained 12 different versions of the talking points that show they were extensively edited as they evolved from the drafts first written entirely by the CIA to the final version distributed to Congress and to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice before she appeared on five talk shows the Sunday after that attack.”
And for those who are drooling for an indictment of the president on the IRS issue:
”In a statement Tuesday night, the I.R.S. acknowledged that “inappropriate shortcuts were used to determine which cases may be engaging in political activities.” But it said the agency had a responsibility to make sure that such organizations did not engage in impermissible political actions, and that not just conservative groups were singled out.
The report said that senior I.R.S. officials told inspectors that no individual or organization outside the agency influenced the criteria used to single out Tea Party or other conservative groups.
The inspector general did seem to back up the Obama administration’s portrayal of a rogue-like operation in Cincinnati flouting the wishes of senior I.R.S. officials in Washington.
Heh.
Marco Rubio called on President Obama to fire the Commissioner of the IRS. Small problem: the Commissioner in place when all this happened was Bush appointee Douglas H. Shulman. He left just after the November election and there’s an acting Commissioner currently in place.
Imagine that. Who woulda thunk...
Shaw, I love your new banner headline... this has been an issue for politicians for years... overreaching and forgetting history... the GOP has just perfected it to an art form recently.
The killing of Pres. Kennedy
Bay of Pigs
Gulf of Tonkin
Killing of RFK
Killing of MLK
My Lai massacre
Kent State
Fall of Saigon
Iran Hostages
Challenger Space Shuttle
Oklahoma Bombing
Columbia Space Shuttle
Columbine
Sandy Hook
World Trade Center Bombings
9/11
No WMD in Iraq
Patrick Tillman killed by friendly fire and resulting coverup
Watergate
Iran-Contra
Katrina
the list goes on and on...
Yes sir Dick Cheney, you've seen a lot of history. And all of these pale in comparison to Benghazi?
Really?
I have no doubt the families of those who were killed that night feel their tragedy is the worst ever, and for them it is.
But for the country? Mr. Cheney, you've lost the right to use the title Vice President. Incredibly disrespectful and uninformed...
reread RN's posts about Benghazi, then wonder about his comment here. According to RN Benghazi was the worst cover up since Watergate.
Like Cheney saying Benghazi was the worst disaster in his lifetime.
Many others feel very differently about the integrity of this president's administration. All points of view should be considered, unless you are satisfied being a mere clone of MSNBC:
MOST RECENT ANTI-OBAMA HEADLINES
http://www.lucianne.com/
1. O’s scandals take nation by storm
...and more on the way.
2. D.C. turns on Obama
Press corps flips into full bore pout and keens,
"He's just not that into ME."
3. Obama´s dangerous new narrative
Are Americans about to make a top-to-bottom reassessment of what they thought they knew about their president?
4. Obama, the uninterested president
Dr. Franksteins turn on the monster they created.
5. More Details on Benghazi Talking Points Emerge
Unfinished business to take care of.
6. Exclusive: White House email contradicts Benghazi leaks
Jonathan Karl and Jake Tapper play toss-the-hot-potato with Benghazi tale.
7. The Still-Forgotten Obama Lie
Worth a revisit now that the MSM is awake.
Free, all points of view?
Are there ever POV that are just beyond the pale of consideration?
How about the folks that deny man ever went to the moon? Should we consider their views?
Sorry Free, IMHO there are some views that are just so far out of the frame of normal, they should not be considered.
This particular quote from Cheney falls into the category of idiocy and really is not worthy of consideration.
Maybe other things he has said are good, but this quote?
Free Thinke,
Do you truly believe your links to rightwing blogs and media are not biased, but the unvarnished truth?
You and other rightwingers are salivating over this because you've never like this president.\
You are hardly without prejudice in these matters, even before the facts are all in, and will happily believe the worst of this president because you've never liked him.
I'm publishing what is being revealed. And one of the things that was revealed is that ABC and other media lied about the WH emails.
All the facts on these issues are not in.
And even when they are, remember this:
Ronald Reagan presided over one of the worst scandals in recent history, and conservatives like you never gave up on him, and continue to idolize him to this day.
Irangate was far worse than whether or not the president said "terrorist attack" or "act of terror." And worse than some inept bureaucrats in some IRS office doing some ill-advised snooping.
No one has proved anything about Mr. Obama's involvement in that eff-up. Unlike what happened during Irangate, where Reagan's top advisers were involved, and were indicted.
Proportion, Mr. Free Thinke, proportion is demanded here. Don't go all ga-ga over what your biases make you THINK and what the rightwing noise machine is reporting.
All I said, Ma'am, was that others have a different point of view on the president, and gave some handy examples.
All I can see in these various exchanges is
!RORSCHACH!HCAHCSROR!
There is NOTHING BUT partisanship in ALL reportage these days.
Unless and until BOTH sides admit that, we will never even START to get at the truth -- whatever it may be.
Free... one of the things that I think some fail to see is this...
Liberals, and Bob Scheer truthdig.com is a good example, have been very critical of President Obama and his policies while he is in office.
Even Jon Stewart has trained his comedic eye on the president, as have other liberals.
Yesterday we saw that Carl Bernstein of the, if you believe the hype, liberal rag Washington Post. even was critical of President Obama.
Paul Krugman has regularly been critical of the president.
And they are not alone. Even here Shaw and others, myself included, have been very critical of some of the decisions and actions of our, and your president.
All of this while he is in office.
Did that happen with GW Bush? Of course not, unless I am missing something. I'd love for you to find me some regular critics of Pres. Bush while he was in office.
There are plenty now that he has left office, but Z said it best, and I am paraphrasing here when she said she was indeed unhappy with some things Bush did while he was in office but she did not want to say so because it would give fodder to the left.
How is that being intellectually honest?
Are us lefties biased? Of course we are but you will hear a whole lot more criticism of President Obama from the left than you ever heard from the right regarding Bush.
Why is that?
Of course that is not what Cheney said but what difference does it make.
“I think it’s one of the worst incidences, frankly, that I can recall in my career ... if they told the truth about Benghazi, that it was a terrorist attack by an Al Qaeda-led group, it would destroy the confidence that was the basis of his campaign for reelection,” Cheney added. “They tried to cover it up by constructing a false story.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/dick-cheney-benghazi-comments-91315.html#ixzz2TOcS9NLk
Here is what Big Dick Cheney said. Get your facts straight:
I watched the Benghazi thing with great interest, Sean. I think it's one of the worst incidences, frankly, that I can recall in my career. It put the whole capability claiming the terrorist problem was solved once we got Bin Laden, that Al Qaeda was over with. And if they told the truth about Benghazi, that it was a terrorist attack by an Al-Qaeda-affiliated group, it would destroy the false image of confidence that was the basis of his campaign for re-election.
We can quibble over he was including the entire episode, including the changing talking points, sending Ambassador Rice out on the Sunday circuit to lie, or the overall fumbling aftermath.
Maybe he was talking about the Administration's basic failure to protect the lives of Americans serving in the State Department overseas. Most egregious since we have a paper trail of Ambassador Stevens pleading for more security and it falling on deaf ears.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/2013/05/14/dick-cheney-benghazi-cover-still-ongoing#ixzz2TP4Wblmf
Harlan from LeftWatch (Somebody's gotta keep 'em honest!)
skudrunner, you come here and tell me of course it wasn't what Cheney said after you kept quoting only half of what Mr. Obama said in the viral "...you didn't build that?"
Are you freakin' serious? You want me to pay any attention to your comment?
Pleeeeeze.
Anonymous, my facts are correct. Big Dick Cheney is an embarrassment. He's been consistently wrong on the most important issues of our time. And he's nothing more than a political hack. He left office with an approval rating below herpes.
Chew on that, bubba.
''the next batch of reasons to INPEACH! President Obama.//
ohohoh.... I just hear d the next big scandal....breakng news..... it has been reported and verified, that President Barack Obama.....routnely sleeps with a BLACK WOMAN in the White House! AND, though unconfirmed.... they have SEX .... in THE LINCOLN BEDROOM !!
Having sex with a woman of African AMerican Descent is certainly a \n impeachable offense..... and the chost of Mary Todd Lincoln is very upset.... said is rolling over and over in her grave. Now....what will be done about that! Where is the investigation? Does Pat Robertson know? .... and , if he does, WHEN did he Know it?
oh gees....
Shaw Kenawe:
You misquoted him. If you cannot get that simple fact straight, it makes us question what else you have gotten wrong.
Maybe you can do like the White House and keep rewriting things until it looks the way you want it.
Obama is a four star pinocchio
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-claim-he-called-benghazi-an-act-of-terrorism/2013/05/13/7b65b83e-bc14-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_blog.html
You need a fact checker.
Harlan from LeftWatch (Somebody's gotta keep 'em honest!)
At least BHO showed some leadership. He asked for the resignation of the acting head of the IRS who had nothing to do with the scandal and a full month before he was leaving anyway.
What leadership he is showing. Wouldn't be surprised if Holder decides to enter the private sector soon.
skudrunner, the man who was head of the IRS when the snooping occurred was appointed by George W. Bush.
"You did a heck of a job Dougie."
H from L.W.,
Yes, Dick Cheney went on air with Fox News’ Hannity to tell them that Benghazi is the worst disaster in his [lifetime], no, career.
Oh, he said "CAREER! That means since 1969, when his political career began. Worse disaster in 44 years!
Oh that makes a HUGE difference! NOT!
Puleeze! You people come here and are indignant that the word "lifetime" was quoted instead of "career?"
You are the same people, (I'm looking at you, skudrunner) who were like a dog on a bone over the misrepresented and taken-out-of-context "you didn't build that."
Please stop being two-faced.
Thank you.
so...cheney said benghazi is worse than 9/11...what a dick...
Cheney meant worst coverup but you know that.
Be sure not to hold the administration accountable and if there is no answer blame bush.
BHO would have won even if he was honest about what happened at Bengazi. He was just advised it was better to deceive and lie and if it ever comes out, blame the gop and fox news.
I don't think his handlers anticipated three oops moments all at once and he, temporary, loss of support from his press corps.
There will be no impeachment because how can you blame someone who admits he is clueless about what is going on until last week, according to the soon to be departed Carney.
No ma'am!
Here is what he said:
"I think it's one of the worst incidences, frankly, that I can recall in my career."
That is direct from the transcript. Given the amount of lives lost on 9/11, it is doubtful he is talking about the deaths themselves, for which Obama and Hillary are culpable, since they ignored requests for more security.
Stay tuned. This ain't over. Obama lied about calling it terror, and he lied about the revisions. One news organization spinning it the wrong way does not negate the fact that Obama originally said there were no revisions.
And the testimony from the people who were there on the ground is damning to the White House.
What did President Obama know, and when did he know it?
Harlan from LeftWatch (Somebody's gotta keep 'em honest!)
H.from LW:
"That is direct from the transcript. Given the amount of lives lost on 9/11, it is doubtful he is talking about the deaths themselves..."
Really. Did Big Dick Cheney actually tell you that? Or are you reading his mind? Or perhaps spinning for Big Dick?
Harlan: "...for which Obama and Hillary are culpable, since they ignored requests for more security."
Unless you can provide links to evidence for that statement, you are doing nothing more than spreading rightwing lies.
"I think it's one of the worst incidences, frankly, that I can recall in my career."
By anyone's reading of that quote, that means he thinks it's on a par with 9/11, or even worse, even worse than his patron, Nixon, resigning in disgrace from the presidency.
And why would anyone with a brain believe ANYTHING Big Dick Cheney said? He's been wrong, wrong, wrong, on major issue during the Bush debacle. When someone is that wrong so often, he deserves no credibility. He's as reliable as Big Dick Morris on anything that comes out of his deceiving mouth.
Harlan, you are a good little righwing chihuahua, running around the blogsphere trying to gain attention by yipping about things you've read on your favorite rightwing noise machines.
Please don't believe for one minute that we take your propaganda seriously.
skudrunner:
"Cheney meant worst coverup but you know that."
Another mind reader eager to interpret what Cheney said, because what he actually said did NOT include "cover up." This little interpretation comes from the rightwinger who came here almost every day during the presidential campaign insisting that Mr. Obama "meant" no one built anything, when the FULL CONTEXT of what he said did not actually say that. But skudrunner KNOWS what Cheney meant.
I'm done with this, because it's stupid and does nothing to clarify the issues.
It is instructive about how skudrunner will "interpret" a GOPer's words favorably, but kept misinterpreting unfavorably what Mr. Obama said.
Dear young lady, here is a link to the transcript:
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/2013/05/14/dick-cheney-benghazi-cover-still-ongoing#ixzz2TP4Wblmf
Those Americans died on Obama's watch, after they had asked him and Secretary Clinton for more security.
President Obama and Secretary Clinton are directly culpable.
Not even attempting to send in help is unconscionable. Three AM phone call? Hell, Obama doesn't even pick up the phone!
What if that were your son or daughter?
Harlan from LeftWatch (Somebody's gotta keep 'em honest!)
FAUX NOOZ and Hannity are your evidence?
Thank you for the biggest guffaw of the day.
Smarter trolls, please.
Ambassador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security, U.S. officials say
May 14, 2013, McClatchy News
"Army Gen. Carter Ham, then the head of the U.S. Africa Command, did not wait for the separate cable, however. Instead, after reading the Aug. 16 cable, Ham phoned Stevens and asked if the embassy needed a special security team from the U.S. military. Stevens told Ham it did not, the officials said.
Weeks later, Stevens traveled to Germany for an already scheduled meeting with Ham at AFRICOM headquarters. During that meeting, Ham again offered additional military assets, and Stevens again said no, the two officials said.
“He didn’t say why. He just turned it down,” a defense official who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the subject told McClatchy.
The offers of aid and Stevens’ rejection of them have not been revealed in either the State Department’s Administrative Review Board investigation of the Benghazi events or during any of the congressional hearings and reports that have been issued into what took place there.
Stevens’ deputy, Gregory Hicks, who might be expected to be aware of the ambassador’s exchange with military leaders, was not asked about the offer of additional assistance during his appearance before a House of Representatives committee last week, and testimony has not been sought from Ham, who is now retired.
Both Hicks and Ham declined to comment on the exchange between Ham and Stevens. Hicks’ lawyer, Victoria Toensing, said Hicks did not know the details of conversations between Stevens and Ham and was not aware of Stevens turning down an offer of additional security."
Anon... did you miss what the former Conservative Republican Sec of Defense said about the idea that the military could have saved those folks?
He said it was cartoonish!
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57584087/gates-some-benghazi-critics-have-cartoonish-view-of-military-capability/
Was Adm Mullen, former Chair of the Joint Chiefs wrong when he said the same thing?
Maybe you can explain why Rep Issa is refusing to let Mullen and AMB Pickering testify in public?
Really one day you conservatives say we need to totally trust the military and their leaders and the next day no...
Dave it is pretty obvious to anyone who follows these issues that the GOP is interested only in finding a scandal to pin on President Obama and not finding out what really happened. And when anyone comes forward with the truth that doesn't point to a cover-up or a scandal, people like Anon ignore and redirect.
There isn't any scandal here, just wishful thinking by the GOP.
Mr. Miller,
I have never said to trust the military.
Indeed, it is a childish act to place trust in government.
Harlan from LeftWatch (Somebody's gotta keep 'em honest!)
Liberal groups seeking tax free status were also investigated. Three times as many conservative groups were seeking that status than liberal groups. Seems reasonable that the Bush appointed temporary head of the IRS thought there was something unusual about that.
Anonymice:
I've had dozens of comments in moderation by "Anonymous."
I am not required to publish any of them.
The anonymous who calls me "little lady:"
You've had your say on this subject; your comments are a rehash of FAUX NOOZ and Breitbart partisan noise.
Harlan from Left Watch, I published 5 of your rebuttals, and they all said the same thing.
You had your say, and it gave us nothing new.
I do not consider Breitbart a source for news. It's purpose is to spread lies and misinformation, much like FAUX NOOZ.
Dear Young Lady,
You are quite feisty!
I will surrender on the Big Dick Cheney point. You believe FOX news would lie, to the point that they would publish a false transcript of an interview given on their channel. Very well. You are impervious! Just don't go look for it on YouTube, it could destroy your impervious citadel. Forgive me, Murdoch is more than capable of doctoring footage and spreading false information via YouTube as well. You win on that point.
A more important point is found in the McClatchy article you pulled your citation from.
I agree with you that the evidence we have access to shows Ambassador Stevens -- "Chris" to those in power after he was murdered -- turned down a larger military presence. He was trying to cultivate the trust of locals. I think any sophisticated person understands that.
However, the military is not the only organization that provides security. There are diplomatic security services and private contractors. The record clearly shows that Ambassador Stevens made repeated requests for more security.
From your McClatchy source,
“RSO (Regional Security Officer) expressed concerns with the ability to defend Post in the event of a coordinated attack due to limited manpower, security measures, weapons capabilities, host nation support, and the overall size of the compound,” the cable said, according to Fox News.
The Accountability Review Board investigation, commissioned by then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and released in December, placed blame for the Benghazi attack in large part on the State Department for not answering repeated calls for more security.
But the report also is peppered with references to Stevens and how well the embassy made the case to Washington for more security. In a news conference at the time of the release of the board’s finding, Adm. Mike Mullen, one of the board’s two chairmen and a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, referred to the failing of the embassy.
Harlan from LeftWatch (Somebody's gotta keep 'em honest!)
Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/05/14/191235/amb-stevens-twice-said-no-to-military.html#storylink=cpy
Harlan from Left Watch:
I suggest you spend more time trying to keep the Right honest, since it was THEY who deliberately misinterpreted the emails to make Mr. Obama's administration look bad.
Now run along and do your work.
Post a Comment