Author Topic: White House: Republicans ignored Benghazi emails  (Read 1578 times)

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39256
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: White House: Republicans ignored Benghazi emails
« Reply #25 on: May 12, 2013, 02:04:24 PM »

Tell the bombz I say hello.

no need

it's a fact

you're the one that has to tell yourself stories

What's the weather like in the ghetto today

It's beautiful here in California
W
I'm going out to enjoy it

later

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: White House: Republicans ignored Benghazi emails
« Reply #26 on: May 12, 2013, 02:22:10 PM »
Tell the bombz I say hello.


tell him yourself queer but don't let Fairy find out or he might get jealous

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39256
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: White House: Republicans ignored Benghazi emails
« Reply #27 on: May 12, 2013, 02:48:38 PM »
(via Hot Air)
ABC: Petraeus called final Benghazi talking points “useless” the day before Rice’s full Ginsburg
One of the mysteries in the Benghazi scandal has been the role of David Petraeus, who was then the Director of the CIA but was forced to resign in a personal scandal shortly thereafter.  While the White House and State Department tried to cobble together talking points to explain away the terrorist attack that took four American lives, what did Petraeus do?  According to new information reported for the first time by Jonathan Karl on ABC News’ This Week earlier this morning, Petraeus rejected the final version as “useless” — and then threw the issue to the White House.
Read more in News
« FREE THE OBAMA BENGHAZI SCANDAL PRISONER NOW

We already knew that Petraeus was stunned by the revisions; now we know he rejected them personally.  ”I would just as soon not use them, but it’s their [the White House] call.”  That would contradict the meme over the last few days that this was an intramural fight between State and CIA with the White House just serving as bystanders.  The CIA Director called the “demonstration” talking points useless the day before Susan Rice went on five Sunday talk shows, but the White House apparently disagreed.  They, evidently, found the false narrative very useful.

…Maybe a select committee should hear more from David Petraeus.  How did his deputy end up approving talking points he himself would have rejected? Who in the White House decided to run with them anyway?   LINK
________________________ _____________

whork

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6587
  • Getbig!
Re: White House: Republicans ignored Benghazi emails
« Reply #28 on: May 12, 2013, 03:52:57 PM »
tell him yourself queer but don't let Fairy find out or he might get jealous


 ;D

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39256
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: White House: Republicans ignored Benghazi emails
« Reply #29 on: May 12, 2013, 08:02:56 PM »
[ Invalid YouTube link ]


bbbooommmmmm

Now post up your comedians you liberal rats

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: White House: Republicans ignored Benghazi emails
« Reply #30 on: May 13, 2013, 09:41:28 AM »
mccain and graham have told the GOP that impeachment is off the table.

At this point, everyone KNOWS the truth.  Obama let those 4 folks get taken out while the military screamed about it.  They were very much able to save them, and they were prevented from it.

At this point, 33, what do you want?  Truth is out there.  The Repubs say they won't punish obama for it.

What are we talking about now? 

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39256
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: White House: Republicans ignored Benghazi emails
« Reply #31 on: May 13, 2013, 09:46:37 AM »
mccain and graham have told the GOP that impeachment is off the table.

At this point, everyone KNOWS the truth.  Obama let those 4 folks get taken out while the military screamed about it.  They were very much able to save them, and they were prevented from it.

At this point, 33, what do you want?  Truth is out there.  The Repubs say they won't punish obama for it.

What are we talking about now? 

I want obama and that nasty bitch hillary to be forced to answer why they lied about blaming the video at the funeral of the seals and then spent 75k on a commercial aired in pakistan spreading said lie.  I want them to answer why they have allowed the film maker to sit in jail the last year when the guy had nothing to do with it.  I want that ghetto crackjhead welfare sewer rat to explain why he went to bed that night after 6 as the attack was underway and then why he flew off to meet w jay z and beyonce the next day. 


Only the most partsan hacks and liberal fools can defend this admn at this point. 

dario73

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6467
  • Getbig!
Re: White House: Republicans ignored Benghazi emails
« Reply #32 on: May 13, 2013, 09:48:03 AM »
Did I miss the part where the left altered emails 12 times? Just checking.

Spinning Benghazi
Posted by Alex Koppelman8031Print More
ShareClose TumblrReddit Linked In Email


It’s a cliché, of course, but it really is true: in Washington, every scandal has a crime and a coverup. The ongoing debate about the attack on the United States facility in Benghazi where four Americans were killed, and the Obama Administration’s response to it, is no exception. For a long time, it seemed like the idea of a coverup was just a Republican obsession. But now there is something to it.

On Friday, ABC News’s Jonathan Karl revealed the details of the editing process for the C.I.A.’s talking points about the attack, including the edits themselves and some of the reasons a State Department spokeswoman gave for requesting those edits. It’s striking to see the twelve different iterations that the talking points went through before they were released to Congress and to United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice, who used them in Sunday show appearances that became a central focus of Republicans’ criticism of the Administration’s public response to the attacks. Over the course of about twenty-four hours, the remarks evolved from something specific and fairly detailed into a bland, vague mush.

From the very beginning of the editing process, the talking points contained the erroneous assertion that the attack was “spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved.” That’s an important fact, because the right has always criticized the Administration based on the suggestion that the C.I.A. and the State Department, contrary to what they said, knew that the attack was not spontaneous and not an outgrowth of a demonstration. But everything else about the changes that were made is problematic. The initial draft revealed by Karl mentions “at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi” before the one in which four Americans were killed. That’s not in the final version. Nor is this: “[W]e do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.” That was replaced by the more tepid “There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.” (Even if we accept the argument that State wanted to be sure that extremists were involved, and that they could be linked to Al Qaeda, before saying so with any level of certainty—which is reasonable and supported by evidence from Karl’s reporting—that doesn’t fully explain these changes away.)

Democrats will argue that the editing process wasn’t motivated by a desire to protect Obama’s record on fighting Al Qaeda in the run-up to the 2012 election. They have a point; based on what we’ve seen from Karl’s report, the process that went into creating and then changing the talking points seems to have been driven in large measure by two parts of the government—C.I.A. and State—trying to make sure the blame for the attacks and the failure to protect American personnel in Benghazi fell on the other guy.

But the mere existence of the edits—whatever the motivation for them—seriously undermines the White House’s credibility on this issue. This past November (after Election Day), White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters that “The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two institutions were changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility’ because ‘consulate’ was inaccurate.”

Remarkably, Carney is sticking with that line even now. In his regular press briefing on Friday afternoon (a briefing that was delayed several times, presumably in part so the White House could get its spin in order, but also so that it could hold a secretive pre-briefing briefing with select members of the White House press corps), he said:

The only edit made by the White House or the State Department to those talking points generated by the C.I.A. was a change from referring to the facility that was attacked in Benghazi from “consulate,” because it was not a consulate, to “diplomatic post”… it was a matter of non-substantive factual correction. But there was a process leading up to that that involved inputs from a lot of agencies, as is always the case in a situation like this and is always appropriate.
This is an incredible thing for Carney to be saying. He’s playing semantic games, telling a roomful of journalists that the definition of editing we’ve all been using is wrong, that the only thing that matters is who’s actually working the keyboard. It’s not quite re-defining the word “is,” or the phrase “sexual relations,” but it’s not all that far off, either.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/05/benghazi-cia-talking-point-edits-white-house.html?mobify=0


Fury

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 21026
  • All aboard the USS Leverage
Re: White House: Republicans ignored Benghazi emails
« Reply #33 on: May 13, 2013, 09:48:27 AM »
tell him yourself queer but don't let Fairy find out or he might get jealous

How do you think someone off the street would you view your posting history were I to show it to them? Do you think they'd considering you a heterosexual considering you spend hour-after-hour and day-after-day on here stalking another man.

How many days of your life have you pissed away following 333 around this board like the little lapdog bitch that you are? I pity you.  :-\


240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: White House: Republicans ignored Benghazi emails
« Reply #34 on: May 13, 2013, 09:55:15 AM »
I want obama and that nasty bitch hillary to be forced to answer why they lied about blaming the video at the funeral of the seals and then spent 75k on a commercial aired in pakistan spreading said lie.  I want them to answer why they have allowed the film maker to sit in jail the last year when the guy had nothing to do with it.  I want that ghetto crackjhead welfare sewer rat to explain why he went to bed that night after 6 as the attack was underway and then why he flew off to meet w jay z and beyonce the next day. 

Only the most partsan hacks and liberal fools can defend this admn at this point. 

I want to see obama impeached over letting americans die like that.   Mccain and graham do not.  At this point, what can anyone say?  We know exactly what happened.  We all know.  Obama will NOT be forced to answer anything - there will be no impeachment.

I guess i'm just baffled at how the repubs just completely bitched out here.  Mccain and graham said obama impeachement is off the table.  It's just like condoning his actions.  Spineless. 

Fury

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 21026
  • All aboard the USS Leverage
Re: White House: Republicans ignored Benghazi emails
« Reply #35 on: May 13, 2013, 10:00:16 AM »
I want to see obama impeached over letting americans die like that.   Mccain and graham do not.  At this point, what can anyone say?  We know exactly what happened.  We all know.  Obama will NOT be forced to answer anything - there will be no impeachment.

I guess i'm just baffled at how the repubs just completely bitched out here.  Mccain and graham said obama impeachement is off the table.  It's just like condoning his actions.  Spineless. 

McCain and Graham are RINOs. These two should have "D" next to their name and you know it.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39256
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: White House: Republicans ignored Benghazi emails
« Reply #36 on: May 13, 2013, 10:02:44 AM »
I want to see obama impeached over letting americans die like that.   Mccain and graham do not.  At this point, what can anyone say?  We know exactly what happened.  We all know.  Obama will NOT be forced to answer anything - there will be no impeachment.

I guess i'm just baffled at how the repubs just completely bitched out here.  Mccain and graham said obama impeachement is off the table.  It's just like condoning his actions.  Spineless. 

Remember the "Keating 5"?  McCain is no saint either. 

and Graham is just as bad

Necrosis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 9899
Re: White House: Republicans ignored Benghazi emails
« Reply #37 on: May 13, 2013, 10:32:13 AM »
mccain and graham have told the GOP that impeachment is off the table.

At this point, everyone KNOWS the truth.  Obama let those 4 folks get taken out while the military screamed about it.  They were very much able to save them, and they were prevented from it.

At this point, 33, what do you want?  Truth is out there.  The Repubs say they won't punish obama for it.

What are we talking about now? 

I can never tell when you are trolling, cus this is absurd, Obama did not let those four folks die. You honestly don't believe that non-sense.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39256
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: White House: Republicans ignored Benghazi emails
« Reply #38 on: May 13, 2013, 10:33:35 AM »
I can never tell when you are trolling, cus this is absurd, Obama did not let those four folks die. You honestly don't believe that non-sense.

Yes he did - he didnt do a fucking thing but go to bed 6 pm and them party w jay z the next day. 


dario73

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6467
  • Getbig!
Re: White House: Republicans ignored Benghazi emails
« Reply #39 on: May 13, 2013, 11:46:25 AM »
I can never tell when you are trolling, cus this is absurd, Obama did not let those four folks die. You honestly don't believe that non-sense.

Be honest.

Did you blame Bush for 9/11 or at any time repeat the phrase that Bush didn't care about black people?

Be honest.

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: White House: Republicans ignored Benghazi emails
« Reply #40 on: May 13, 2013, 01:40:42 PM »
How do you think someone off the street would you view your posting history were I to show it to them? Do you think they'd considering you a heterosexual considering you spend hour-after-hour and day-after-day on here stalking another man.

How many days of your life have you pissed away following 333 around this board like the little lapdog bitch that you are? I pity you.  :-\



by stalking you must be referring to 333 constantly begging me to pay attention to him

Seriously Fairy, what is it with your jealous obsession with 333 anyway?

Don't you know he's only into twinks and Tbomz


Necrosis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 9899
Re: White House: Republicans ignored Benghazi emails
« Reply #41 on: May 13, 2013, 02:39:21 PM »
Be honest.

Did you blame Bush for 9/11 or at any time repeat the phrase that Bush didn't care about black people?

Be honest.

I honestly blamed the intelligence community, I don't think bush is qualified to make those calls, he would take a recommendation by someone with much more experience, counter-terrorism etc. It happened on his watch but it wasn't his fault. I think the blame would be more collective.

Katrina was just a mess, I don't think it mattered about race, However, I am not really exposed to racism but I assume something as blatant as not caring about blacks wouldn't go unnoticed.




Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: White House: Republicans ignored Benghazi emails
« Reply #42 on: May 13, 2013, 03:11:18 PM »
I honestly blamed the intelligence community, I don't think bush is qualified to make those calls, he would take a recommendation by someone with much more experience, counter-terrorism etc. It happened on his watch but it wasn't his fault. I think the blame would be more collective.

Katrina was just a mess, I don't think it mattered about race, However, I am not really exposed to racism but I assume something as blatant as not caring about blacks wouldn't go unnoticed.

How do you think the Repubs would react today if Obama did something like the this

My personal opinion is that the fact that they were creating "intelligence" to make a case for war was well known in all corners of the administration, including the POTUS

The Wiki entry on Douglas Feith

Feith was not part of the intelligence community but a part of the Bush Administration as Undersecretary of Defense for Policy

Quote
Feith joined the administration of President George W. Bush as Undersecretary of Defense for Policy in 2001. His appointment was facilitated by connections he had with other neoconservatives, including Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz. With his new appointment in hand, Feith proved influential in having Richard Perle chosen as chairman of the Defense Policy Board.[10] Feith was criticized during the first term of the Bush administration for creating the Office of Strategic Influence. This office came into existence to support the War on Terror. The office's aim was to influence policymakers by submitting biased news stories into the foreign media. Feith played a significant role in the build up to the Iraq war.[11] As part of his portfolio, he supervised the Pentagon Office of Special Plans, a group of policy and intelligence analysts created to provide senior government officials with raw intelligence, unvetted by the intelligence community.[12] The office, eventually dismantled, was later criticized in Congress and the media for analysis that was contradicted by CIA analysis and investigations performed following the invasion of Iraq. General Tommy Franks, who led both the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan and the Iraq War, once called Feith "the dumbest fucking guy on the planet."[13][14]
In February 2007, the Pentagon's inspector general issued a report that concluded that Feith's office "developed, produced, and then disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and al Qaida relationship, which included some conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus of the Intelligence Community, to senior decision-makers." This repeated Feith's earlier involvement with Team B as a postgraduate, when alternative intelligence assessments exaggerating threats to the United States turned out to be wrong on nearly every point. The report found that these actions were "inappropriate" though not "illegal." Senator Carl Levin, Chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, stated that "The bottom line is that intelligence relating to the Iraq-al-Qaeda relationship was manipulated by high-ranking officials in the Department of Defense to support the administration's decision to invade Iraq. The inspector general's report is a devastating condemnation of inappropriate activities in the DOD policy office that helped take this nation to war."[15] At Senator Levin's insistence, on April 6, 2007, the Pentagon's Inspector General's Report was declassified and released to the public.[16]
Responding to criticism of a report that linked Al-Qaeda with Iraq under Saddam Hussein, Feith called the office's report a much-needed critique of the CIA's intelligence. "It's healthy to criticize the CIA's intelligence", Feith said. "What the people in the Pentagon were doing was right. It was good government." Feith also rejected accusations he attempted to link Iraq to a formal relationship with Al Qaeda. "No one in my office ever claimed there was an operational relationship", Feith said. "There was a relationship."[17] Feith stated that he "felt vindicated" by the report of the Pentagon inspector general.[18] He told the Washington Post that his office produced "a criticism of the consensus of the intelligence community, and in presenting it I was not endorsing its substance."[15] Feith was the first senior Pentagon official to leave the administration after Bush was re-elected.[10] There was some speculation when Feith announced he was leaving as to why he was stepping down. Some believed he was pressured to leave because of problems over his performance and his increasing marginalization.[19]