Democrats now critical of Rice's Benghazi explanation, amid more damaging evidence

  • Thread starter Thread starter livingwordunity
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Anonymous CBS Sources Smear Sharyl Attkisson
There has been a lot written about a Politico piece that ran Wednesday in the wake of a Washington Post profile of CBS News investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson. The Post profile was mostly positive, painting the picture of an intrepid reporter willing to take on the story of a terrorist attack in Libya in the face of enormous pushback from the Obama White House. The Politico piece, however, was nothing more than unsubstantiated gossip meant only to tarnish Attkisson.
The Post profile was a well-deserved and long overdue acknowledgement. Although the Post didn’t say so, Attkisson has also shown bravery in her willingness to step up where her colleagues either refuse or are too scared to go. Libya is a legitimate story about a White House coverup. But for purely partisan reasons, the media won’t touch it for fear it will damage Obama and/or Hillary Clinton.
In case people don’t know about this lady, in brief, she’s being jerked around some by her employer CBS for doing her job in investigating Benghazi, just another thing that doesn’t add up.
 
There WAS new information revealed at yesterday’s hearing:

townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2013/05/09/the-damning-dozen-twelve-revelations-from-the-benghazi-hearings-n1591336

We’ve talked about most of these points. One of the things I learned was the DIRECT contact with SoS Clinton during the attack and in fact before the attack. She claimed ignorance about the requests for additional security but Nordstrom said she absolutely knew. Further it was at her specific request that Stevens was in Benghazi. She wanted this outpost to be a symbol of her great accomplishment during her tenure.

Oh and another thing I learned; her major bragging right was as the most traveled SoS in history apparently. So while I don’t recall any diplomatic accomplishments she did rack up a lot of frequent flyer miles.

Lisa
 
There WAS new information revealed at yesterday’s hearing:

townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2013/05/09/the-damning-dozen-twelve-revelations-from-the-benghazi-hearings-n1591336

We’ve talked about most of these points. One of the things I learned was the DIRECT contact with SoS Clinton during the attack and in fact before the attack. She claimed ignorance about the requests for additional security but Nordstrom said she absolutely knew. Further it was at her specific request that Stevens was in Benghazi. She wanted this outpost to be a symbol of her great accomplishment during her tenure.

Oh and another thing I learned; her major bragging right was as the most traveled SoS in history apparently. So while I don’t recall any diplomatic accomplishments she did rack up a lot of frequent flyer miles.

Lisa
Not that she needs the free flights, now that she is fleecing chumps for $200K per speech. She may have been an utter failure, but as you implied previously, there is no shortage of entrenched, aging feminists who are living vicariously through her. :o Rob
 
Among other things, I believe they say only the President can order a stand down and there were 2 stand downs. Just more little details of the story.
 
As juvenile as Wonkette can sound, it can and does make some solid points (or links to other sites that do) concerning Benghazi and the hearings of two days ago.

wonkette.com/514824/fox-news-expert-outlines-benghazi-rescue-plan-that-would-have-worked-great-except-for-the-time-travel-part

There is also this: wonkette.com/515676/gop-benghazi-hearings-dont-support-conspiracy-claims-as-if-that-matters

Also, there is thinkprogress.org/security/2013/05/08/1982151/witnesses-debunk-benghazi/?mobile=nc

Perhaps the most pertinent passage from it is this:

“Ranking Member Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) questioned that statement, asking Hicks whether he disagreed with Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff Gen Martin Dempsey’s assessment that no air assets were in range the night of the attack. Hicks didn’t disagree, saying he was “speaking from [his] perspective” and what “veteran Libyan revolutionaries” told him, rather than Pentagon assessments.”

The timeline provided at armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=286253c3-3345-46a3-a120-496a75a448da

is quite instructional, as well.

I realize most of the people on the other side of this debate will remain unphased by all this. But I also predict that, because all this information is out there, the inevitable call to impeach Obama will go exactly nowhere. And if it does go somewhere, even if it succeeds, a vote to put him on trial won’t go any further than a similar motion went during Bill Clinton’s presidency.
 
As juvenile as Wonkette can sound, it can and does make some solid points (or links to other sites that do) concerning Benghazi and the hearings of two days ago.

wonkette.com/514824/fox-news-expert-outlines-benghazi-rescue-plan-that-would-have-worked-great-except-for-the-time-travel-part

There is also this: wonkette.com/515676/gop-benghazi-hearings-dont-support-conspiracy-claims-as-if-that-matters

Also, there is thinkprogress.org/security/2013/05/08/1982151/witnesses-debunk-benghazi/?mobile=nc

Perhaps the most pertinent passage from it is this:

“Ranking Member Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) questioned that statement, asking Hicks whether he disagreed with Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff Gen Martin Dempsey’s assessment that no air assets were in range the night of the attack. Hicks didn’t disagree, saying he was “speaking from [his] perspective” and what “veteran Libyan revolutionaries” told him, rather than Pentagon assessments.”

The timeline provided at armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=286253c3-3345-46a3-a120-496a75a448da

is quite instructional, as well.

I realize most of the people on the other side of this debate will remain unphased by all this. But I also predict that, because all this information is out there, the inevitable call to impeach Obama will go exactly nowhere. And if it does go somewhere, even if it succeeds, a vote to put him on trial won’t go any further than a similar motion went during Bill Clinton’s presidency.
How could you leave out Elijah Cummings famous lines “Death is a part of life”???

And there is real insight as to Hicks’ statements?

Obama may not be impeached but this will surely cripple his presidency, I’d consider it done, someone who votes for infanticide may be having some bad karma coming back at him but it’s very Christian to defend him after all, a vote for Obama himself would never be a vote for infanticide would it? Oh wait!

Hillary Clinton’s aspirations will likely take a big blow, even if it is not perjury because the first time around in the hearings, she may not have been under oath, her credibility will be first questioned by other Democrats should she run for presidency. Never seeing nomination at the convention.

And who knows? There may well come out more. This administration hasn’t been exactly transparent. It’s been serious stonewalling.

Maybe we need to read the Daily Kos and Mother Jones and listen to Rachel Maddow to get an idea of the perspective some here have.
 
Why Benghazi is a Blow to Obama and Clinton
Both parties are wrong about the scandal: It’s not Watergate and it’s not nothing.
Pat Smith, mother of Sean Smith was interviewed on the O’reilly Factor last night and she said that Hillary Clinton, Susan Smith and Barack Obama toll her personally that the anti Islam video was to blame at the memorial ceremony on 14th of September.
 
As juvenile as Wonkette can sound, it can and does make some solid points (or links to other sites that do) concerning Benghazi and the hearings of two days ago.

wonkette.com/514824/fox-news-expert-outlines-benghazi-rescue-plan-that-would-have-worked-great-except-for-the-time-travel-part

There is also this: wonkette.com/515676/gop-benghazi-hearings-dont-support-conspiracy-claims-as-if-that-matters

Also, there is thinkprogress.org/security/2013/05/08/1982151/witnesses-debunk-benghazi/?mobile=nc

Perhaps the most pertinent passage from it is this:

“Ranking Member Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) questioned that statement, asking Hicks whether he disagreed with Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff Gen Martin Dempsey’s assessment that no air assets were in range the night of the attack. Hicks didn’t disagree, saying he was “speaking from [his] perspective” and what “veteran Libyan revolutionaries” told him, rather than Pentagon assessments.”

The timeline provided at armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=286253c3-3345-46a3-a120-496a75a448da

is quite instructional, as well.

I realize most of the people on the other side of this debate will remain unphased by all this. But I also predict that, because all this information is out there, the inevitable call to impeach Obama will go exactly nowhere. And if it does go somewhere, even if it succeeds, a vote to put him on trial won’t go any further than a similar motion went during Bill Clinton’s presidency.
The GOP is still trying to soothe itself…they can’t even get their speaker to appoint a select committee. He came out with a very strong statement saying that they want copies of emails that he admits that they were already shown…strong stuff…the President may as well pack now. Of course, to those who are looking for illegal activity where there likely was none, any smoking gun will do…no matter how far removed from reality it might be.

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324744104578473123044319566.html
 
A Monstrous Coverup
'There is no video that justifies an attack on an embassy,” the President of the United States told the United Nations last September 25, one of six “video” references in his speech. A fortnight after the deadly attack on America’s mission in Benghazi, Obama was still insisting that Innocence of Muslims, an obscure, anti-Islamic YouTube video, had fueled the mayhem. Presumably, a spontaneous protest spun out of control and unleashed lethal violence.
But, as he addressed the General Assembly, Obama surely knew that it was an al-Qaeda–propelled assault, not a YouTube video…
-From the very start of this episode, U.S. officials called it an attack, rather than a video-driven protest.
-“Greg, we are under attack,” Ambassador Stevens said in his last words to Deputy Chief of Mission Greg Hicks, just before Stevens’s cell phone clicked off on the night of September 11.
-The Weekly Standard’s Stephen Hayes reports that two hours into the onslaught, at 6:08 p.m. Eastern Time, a State Department Operations Center alert, in Hayes’s words, “indicated that Ansar al Sharia, an al Qaeda–linked terrorist group operating in Libya, had claimed credit for the attack.”
-In a newly revealed September 12 e-mail to State Department staffers, Acting Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs Elizabeth Jones recalls consulting Libya’s ambassador in Washington. Jones wrote: “I told him that the group that conducted the attacks, Ansar Al Sharia, is affiliated with Islamic terrorists.”
-“The YouTube video was a non-event in Libya,” Hicks testified under oath Wednesday. “The only report that our mission made through every channel was that there had been an attack on our consulate. . . . No protest.”
 
Why Benghazi is a Blow to Obama and Clinton

Pat Smith, mother of Sean Smith was interviewed on the O’reilly Factor last night and she said that Hillary Clinton, Susan Smith and Barack Obama toll her personally that the anti Islam video was to blame at the memorial ceremony on 14th of September.
As I said Obama has nothing to fear, it’s not against the law to lie to the American public and he’s been doing it since day one. Hillary’s testimony before congress can result in criminal charges.
 
As I said Obama has nothing to fear, it’s not against the law to lie to the American public and he’s been doing it since day one. Hillary’s testimony before congress can result in criminal charges.
I don’t know if Obama has nothing to fear, per the article:
If nothing else, Benghazi is a blow to the credibility of the president and his potential successor, then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. This could be big.
The political fallout can be immense. Could this ever happen to a Benjamin Netanyahu?

As opposed to those who have to bandy the name “GOP” about, does anyone doubt that if President George Bush had seen this event happen during his tenure and blamed it on a video, that the Democrats would have just accepted it? But perhaps some journalists need to attack the messenger not the message.

Nothing will happen to Obama per impeachment? Of course not if these don’t rise to high crimes and misdemeanors.
 
Nothing will happen to Obama per impeachment? Of course not if these don’t rise to high crimes and misdemeanors.
It won’t damage his “presidency”. The people that care already give him a D- rating. The economy, foreign policy and domestic tranquility are all in the toilet and this is just one more of a long line of screwups.

The ObamaCare debacle of 2014 might move him to an F rating. Millions of people that are paying for their health insurance today THINK they are going to get free health insurance - little do they know they may lose their health insurance and if they keep it they will pay more for it. This is the one that will get everyone’s attention - because it’s going to hit them in their pocketbook.

Hillary is toast.
 
It won’t damage his “presidency”. The people that care already give him a D- rating. The economy, foreign policy and domestic tranquility are all in the toilet and this is just one more of a long line of screwups.

The ObamaCare debacle of 2014 might move him to an F rating. Millions of people that are paying for their health insurance today THINK they are going to get free health insurance - little do they know they may lose their health insurance and if they keep it they will pay more for it. This is the one that will get everyone’s attention - because it’s going to hit them in their pocketbook.

Hillary is toast.
You may be right and I hope it is true. I get newsfeed from ABC and they are reporting twelve revisions of the talking points, not by the intelligence community but by State and perhaps the White House. Comments to the extent that this will be difficult for Hillary to dodge going forward.

They may never openly throw Obama under the bus but they are seeing Hillary’s soft underbelly and I think they are going in for the kill.

Also agree on Obamacare really hitting people this year. Sadly a lot of people are still so ignorant they think SCOTUS over turned it and it’s gone…

Lisa
 
You may be right and I hope it is true. I get newsfeed from ABC and they are reporting twelve revisions of the talking points, not by the intelligence community but by State and perhaps the White House. Comments to the extent that this will be difficult for Hillary to dodge going forward.

They may never openly throw Obama under the bus but they are seeing Hillary’s soft underbelly and I think they are going in for the kill.

Also agree on Obamacare really hitting people this year. Sadly a lot of people are still so ignorant they think SCOTUS over turned it and it’s gone…

Lisa
Though we obviously have a dichotomy of parties here, a lot of this talk sounds like simple partisanship. A lot of people just want the truth out, aren’t looking at parties, aren’t trying to make political capital of it. Are only viewing this as Americans, all of us.
 
The GOP is still trying to soothe itself…they can’t even get their speaker to appoint a select committee. He came out with a very strong statement saying that they want copies of emails that he admits that they were already shown…strong stuff…the President may as well pack now. Of course, to those who are looking for illegal activity where there likely was none, any smoking gun will do…no matter how far removed from reality it might be.

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324744104578473123044319566.html
Stop making this political. Please respond to the LIES.
 
The GOP is still trying to soothe itself…they can’t even get their speaker to appoint a select committee. He came out with a very strong statement saying that they want copies of emails that he admits that they were already shown…strong stuff…the President may as well pack now. Of course, to those who are looking for illegal activity where there likely was none, any smoking gun will do…no matter how far removed from reality it might be.

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324744104578473123044319566.html
oldcelt, unlike you I actually listen and read the statements. Per Trey Gowdy and Jason Chaffitz who have been instrumental in this controversy, a Select Committee might become necessary, IF they want classified documents, particularly with respect to the military decision to stand down. Both said at this information gathering time, the committees are functioning to drill down to the actual issues. Much progress was made during the hearing. Gowdy stated that he HAD seen the Beth Jones email admitting to the Islamist ties (9/12/12) but those not on the current committees had not. At the end of the hearing, Rep Cummings said HE wanted to see those 100+ emails that the committee had seen prior to the hearings.

Regarding the President, he was AWOL during the attack and shortly thereafter. That is an unresolved question but one the committees have not pursued as yet. They are trying to get to the truth about what is NOT known about the stand down order based on the specious claim “we couldn’t get there in time.” Since no one knew how long the attack would continue, and in fact there were hours and hours between the initial and subsequent attack, it’s rather ridiculous to say “we couldn’t have made it in time.” Now colm noted the possibility they were to stay in Tripoli (that group of potential responders) and that is a possibility according to military experts. However certainly this should be investigated further. We have a tradition of honor, of leaving no man behind. This tradition was clearly breached during the Benghazi attack. Further the group that was attempting to leave from Tripoli wanted to provide MEDICAL assistance. One of the SF was a trained medic and apparently wanted to treat the wounded from the first attack. They were very concerned about their people being moved to an Ansar Al Sharia controlled hospital.

Also it IS a crime to lie to Congress. Hillary has some ‘splainin’ to do.

Lisa
 
I think that Clinton, being a Legacy Hunter like her husband ( and Obama too ) gambled on the eroneous possibility of the Lybian Embasadores solving their delema unassisted thus making such a small ripple in the news as to become nothing more than ‘water under the bridge’. But they lost that gamble and now it’s all this.

But now they will have to find another way to weasel out of it and they will. Hillery is brilliant at scandal evasian, we’ve seen that many times before.
 
Also it IS a crime to lie to Congress. Hillary has some ‘splainin’ to do.

Lisa
This!

Not sure if Hillary actually lied. She evaded the questions by saying, “What difference does it make” and explaining her changing facts as due to the “the fog of war”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top