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.
LisaA said:
We’ve led you to water, you won’t drink.

I’ve been on this forum long enough to identify the Tom Sawyer approach. When someone doesn’t want to acknowledge a point made they ask the poster to do the research and spoon feed them. IOW we do the work. Sorry won’t bite but enjoy your bliss.

Lisa
Click to expand...
Hiding behind the “you can’t prove anything” mantra is childish, so if people want to go that route rather than look at things with common sense, so be it. The majority of people don’t look at the obvious through legalities. Only partisans do that, which is why they don’t relate to the average joe very well.

If the story gets coverage and the way it should, it will be obvious that Clinton and Obama were lying when they continued to insist on the false narrative.

If it gets buried as it was before, then people will remain ignorant.
 
HappyCatholic01 said:
Hiding behind the “you can’t prove anything” mantra is childish, so if people want to go that route rather than look at things with common sense, so be it. The majority of people don’t look at the obvious through legalities. Only partisans do that, which is why they don’t relate to the average joe very well.

If the story gets coverage and the way it should, it will be obvious that Clinton and Obama were lying when they continued to insist on the false narrative.

If it gets buried as it was before, then people will remain ignorant.
Click to expand...
Also proving a negative is quite impossible. So that’s a road I don’t waste time travelling. I think now that ABC and even PBS are on the story, it’s too late to put the genie back in the bottle. There is enough in the unclassified material to demonstrate that from the beginning the reports referred to Al Qaeda inspired terrorism. This came through intercepted cables of Ansar Al Sharia and was reported to the CIA by the bureau section chief. Then CIA head David Patraeus included these references in his reports to State. The Libyan President had reported publically the attack was done by known Islamists of the Ansar Al Sharia group. He expressed great regret at the death of Stevens who had been dedicated to the Libyan people and a better life for them.

If Hillary and Obama didn’t know about the real source of the attack, it was “willful blindness” So either they are dishonest or incredibly incompetent. Neither conclusion is very positive is it?

Lisa
 
Interesting connection between CBS News and Ben Rhodes who was thought to be behind the changed talking points:

one obvious candidate is Ben Rhodes, deputy national security advisor for communication for Barack Obama. Rhodes has worked for Obama since 2007, and works under National Security Advisor Tom Donilon. Rhodes’ brother, David Rhodes, is the president of CBS News. He “directs network newsgathering for all CBS News platforms,” according to the CBS News website.
Ben Rhodes has been named as a central player in the revision of the Benghazi talking points that ended with Ambassador Susan Rice going on network television and lying about the nature of the Benghazi attacks by labeling them results of a spontaneous protest about a YouTube video. Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard writes:

CIA officials cut all references to Ansar al Sharia and made minor tweaks. But in a follow-up email at 9:24 p.m., Nuland wrote that the problem remained and that her superiors—she did not say which ones—were unhappy. The changes, she wrote, did not “resolve all my issues or those of my building leadership,” and State Department leadership was contacting National Security Council officials directly. Moments later, according to the House report, “White House officials responded by stating that the State Department’s concerns would have to be taken into account.” One official—Ben Rhodes, The Weekly Standard is told, a top adviser to President Obama on national security and foreign policy—further advised the group that the issues would be resolved in a meeting of top administration officials the following morning at the White House.

Ah yes, Ben Rhodes! That name seems to be coming up quite a bit when we speak about the person who may have come up with the idea for the entire “YouTube video was the cause of the attacks in Benghazi” cover-up line.

Finally, keep in mind that it was CBS News that aided and abetted Barack Obama in covering up Benghazi during the 2012 elections.

freedomoutpost.com/2013/05/who-at-the-white-house-is-giving-a-tremendous-amount-of-pushback-to-cbs-on-benghazi/
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
You’ve led me to a wasteland of unsubstantiated allegations. Still waiting.
Click to expand...
Perhaps if the White House doesn’t want it looked into, that is a wasteland of obstructing justice. Perhaps you should be writing these journalists and ask them not to report the news. You shouldn’t fault others if you don’t want to know the truth yourself.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
Where is your proof that President Obama and Hillary Clinton knew the information to be false before they spoke or passed it to Susan Rice knowing it was false? Where is your proof that either of them even ordered this information to be provided to Susan Rice? All you have is an intelligence assessment that was altered before either of them ever laid eyes on it. You have MANY more dots to connect before you can declare them to be liars.
Click to expand...
In the military, the commander is responsible for his entire chain providing him the information required to make decisions. To have a command climate that ensures he will be given the truth, given it promptly, with appropriate recommendations on what to do.

Military commanders in the US are routinely fired for failing to have the correct information when making a decision. Because they were supposed to run their command to ensure it was provided.

If Hilary and Obama didn’t know the facts as soon as they were available, that is an even bigger indictment on their competence than knowingly providing the false narrative blaming the video. It’s their job to ensure they aren’t lied to by their underlings.
 
styrgwillidar said:
In the military, the commander is responsible for his entire chain providing him the information required to make decisions. To have a command climate that ensures he will be given the truth, given it promptly, with appropriate recommendations on what to do.

Military commanders in the US are routinely fired for failing to have the correct information when making a decision. Because they were supposed to run their command to ensure it was provided.

If Hilary and Obama didn’t know the facts as soon as they were available, that is an even bigger indictment on their competence than knowingly providing the false narrative blaming the video. It’s their job to ensure they aren’t lied to by their underlings.
Click to expand...
I think a lot of Obama’s underlings are so on board with team Obama that they become a “yes man” afraid to tell him that anything is going wrong in Obamaland. 🙂
 
I watched “The Five” today, with Juan Williams subbing for their normally weak representation of the alternate view of the other four…he made himself look like the only adult in the room.
We should have…why didn’t they, etc…until, the little guy who normally sits on the right of the TV view finally said in effect that there is nothing illegal here…maybe immoral. Then they played a statement from one of the victim’s mothers about what she expected…sad…but completely irrelevant.
Add to this that there is supposed to be information that Mr.Hicks contradicted his sworn statements from an April 16 statement.

There it is…it is all out there…
 
pausing and stuttering are classic signs of someone who is thinking what to say when he can’t tell the truth. The truth is quick and easy to recite.
 
oldcelt said:
I watched “The Five” today, with Juan Williams subbing for their normally weak representation of the alternate view of the other four…he made himself look like the only adult in the room.
We should have…why didn’t they, etc…until, the little guy who normally sits on the right of the TV view finally said in effect that there is nothing illegal here…maybe immoral. Then they played a statement from one of the victim’s mothers about what she expected…sad…but completely irrelevant.
Add to this that there is supposed to be information that Mr.Hicks contradicted his sworn statements from an April 16 statement.

There it is…it is all out there…
Click to expand...
LisaA said:
oldcelt you must not watch The Five very often. The “little guy” is Greg Gutfeld who is a comedian and often makes tongue in cheek statements.

You would have learned a lot more by listening to Jay Carney’s press conference. It wasn’t the usual suspects who grilled Mr Carney but the alphabet soup channel reporters and they sounded quite annoyed. I am not sure why they were shocked that they had been conned but it speaks to the reality that many of the networks have not paid much attention. Over and over they asked why the multiple changes to the talking points. He kept repeating that they “didn’t want to speculate but to make factual statements that could be confirmed.” However since the reports were all about the video, that sounds as if they did just that, take speculation and call it fact.

Carney then admitted to the numerous changes but said they were made by State, the CIA and other “stakeholders.” He then claimed the ONLY change made by the White House was the word Consulate was removed and a more accurate term for the Benghazi facility inserted. So the CIA was thrown under the bus again.

It’s getting crowded under there.

Lisa
Click to expand...
👍
 
oldcelt said:
The best is yet to come…just my prediction you understand.
Click to expand...
Hopefully the pattern of two terms then switch parties for president will continue for the next election. Like someone else said, it’s good for America when the press and the White House aren’t in bed with each other. 🙂
 
livingwordunity said:
Hopefully the pattern of two terms then switch parties for president will continue for the next election. Like someone else said, it’s good for America when the press and the White House aren’t in bed with each other. 🙂
Click to expand...
Actually, I agree…but the GOP will have to come up with someone who is electable.
 
Geraldo Rivera: My Sources Tell Me Benghazi Was About Running Missiles to Syrian Rebels
Geraldo Rivera said Friday that his sources tell him the U.S. was involved in a secret mission in Libya to arm the Syrian rebels, which was the reason for the initial secrecy about the attack in Benghazi.
Click to expand...
Rivera said on “Fox & Friends” that Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney may have been briefed by then-CIA Director David Petraeus “to suggest that there was a secret mission going on there, that we can’t go there, we can’t talk about it.”
Click to expand...
Hence, Romney may have “nixed” the airing of the Benghazi ad, it may be a matter of national security, that makes sense but maybe they should just say it’s a matter of national security.

What Geraldo says is what many have thought since the initial time period after the attack.
 
oldcelt said:
the GOP will have to come up with someone who is electable.
Click to expand...
By whose standards, the liberal media and the Democrats? The Republican party already tried the “electable” strategy twice, first with McCain and then with Romney. It happened the same way both times. In the primaries the liberal media gives their support to the “electable” Republican until they are sure that he won the primary. Then they turn on him like Judas Iscariot turned on Jesus. Are you saying you want Republicans to make the same mistake again? 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top