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

[ishii]

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…

This stinks to high heavens - the whole Benghazi scandal. “Benghazi-gate” I guess they’ll be calling it (even though I don’t like the whole adding “gate” to every name to signify scandal status). I think Hillary’s presidential chances are over. Her whole strong point was “foreign policy” as first a senator “with gravitas” and then Sec. State. Perfect credentials for a presidential run! But of course Benghazi-gate exposes her for not only the liar she is, but for how incompetent she is. I can see the political ads: “what does it matter!!”

But Peggy Noonan puts it better than I can:

"*The Obama White House sees every event as a political event. Really, every event, even an attack on a consulate and the killing of an ambassador.

Because of that, it could not tolerate the idea that the armed assault on the Benghazi consulate was a premeditated act of Islamist terrorism. That would carry a whole world of unhappy political implications, and demand certain actions. And the American presidential election was only eight weeks away. They wanted this problem to go away, or at least to bleed the meaning from it*."

“All of this is bad enough. Far worse is the implied question that hung over the House hearing, and that cries out for further investigation. That is the idea that if the administration was to play down the nature of the attack it would have to play down the response—that is, if you want something to be a nonstory you have to have a nonresponse. So you don’t launch a military rescue operation, you don’t scramble jets, and you have a rationalization—they’re too far away, they’ll never make it in time. This was probably true, but why not take the chance when American lives are at stake?”

online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html

Does the Obama administration have blood on its hands? What say you, Oldcelt? How far does partisanship take you before you admit, “yes this is a scandal” ? Doesn’t this warrant further investigation? What did he know and when did he know it?

Side note: Peggy Noonan supported Obama in 2008. I still haven’t forgiven her for that. but she can sure cut through the heart of the matter.

No one died in Watergate - but a president was brought down.

Ishii

 

[LisaA]

This stinks to high heavens - the whole Benghazi scandal. “Benghazi-gate” I guess they’ll be calling it (even though I don’t like the whole adding “gate” to every name to signify scandal status). I think Hillary’s presidential chances are over. Her whole strong point was “foreign policy” as first a senator “with gravitas” and then Sec. State. Perfect credentials for a presidential run! But of course Benghazi-gate exposes her for not only the liar she is, but for how incompetent she is. I can see the political ads: “what does it matter!!”

But Peggy Noonan puts it better than I can:

"*The Obama White House sees every event as a political event. Really, every event, even an attack on a consulate and the killing of an ambassador.

Because of that, it could not tolerate the idea that the armed assault on the Benghazi consulate was a premeditated act of Islamist terrorism. That would carry a whole world of unhappy political implications, and demand certain actions. And the American presidential election was only eight weeks away. They wanted this problem to go away, or at least to bleed the meaning from it*."

“All of this is bad enough. Far worse is the implied question that hung over the House hearing, and that cries out for further investigation. That is the idea that if the administration was to play down the nature of the attack it would have to play down the response—that is, if you want something to be a nonstory you have to have a nonresponse. So you don’t launch a military rescue operation, you don’t scramble jets, and you have a rationalization—they’re too far away, they’ll never make it in time. This was probably true, but why not take the chance when American lives are at stake?”

online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html

Does the Obama administration have blood on its hands? What say you, Oldcelt? How far does partisanship take you before you admit, “yes this is a scandal” ? Doesn’t this warrant further investigation? What did he know and when did he know it?

Side note: Peggy Noonan supported Obama in 2008. I still haven’t forgiven her for that. but she can sure cut through the heart of the matter.

No one died in Watergate - but a president was brought down.

Ishii

Ishii thanks so much for posting the Noonan piece. I had heard it was outstanding but hadn’t accessed it as yet. I agree, Noonan’s support of Obama in 08 was disturbing because she seemed too smart to be fooled by all the razzle dazzle and breaded air he was peddling. She does have a way of cutting to the chase though and this makes perfect sense. The non-response to a non-event…exactly. You know the theory of No Drama Obama. Raised to an artform…gee too bad a few people had to die but you have to break a few eggs to make an omlette.

As to Mrs Clinton, I thought she was another stuffed shirt whose reputation far exceeded her accomplishments…hmmm much like POTUS. I think the media support is delayed guilt having originally propped her up and then tossed her aside for the cool dude. If she would simply wait her turn, get a little cred, they’d give her another try. Now they have a reason to look for the next cool dude or dudette. Hillary happened a long time ago. I think her prospects for 2016 are declining. One can hope…

Lisa

 

[meltzerboy]

This stinks to high heavens - the whole Benghazi scandal. “Benghazi-gate” I guess they’ll be calling it (even though I don’t like the whole adding “gate” to every name to signify scandal status). I think Hillary’s presidential chances are over. Her whole strong point was “foreign policy” as first a senator “with gravitas” and then Sec. State. Perfect credentials for a presidential run! But of course Benghazi-gate exposes her for not only the liar she is, but for how incompetent she is. I can see the political ads: “what does it matter!!”

But Peggy Noonan puts it better than I can:

"*The Obama White House sees every event as a political event. Really, every event, even an attack on a consulate and the killing of an ambassador.

Because of that, it could not tolerate the idea that the armed assault on the Benghazi consulate was a premeditated act of Islamist terrorism. That would carry a whole world of unhappy political implications, and demand certain actions. And the American presidential election was only eight weeks away. They wanted this problem to go away, or at least to bleed the meaning from it*."

“All of this is bad enough. Far worse is the implied question that hung over the House hearing, and that cries out for further investigation. That is the idea that if the administration was to play down the nature of the attack it would have to play down the response—that is, if you want something to be a nonstory you have to have a nonresponse. So you don’t launch a military rescue operation, you don’t scramble jets, and you have a rationalization—they’re too far away, they’ll never make it in time. This was probably true, but why not take the chance when American lives are at stake?”

online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html

Does the Obama administration have blood on its hands? What say you, Oldcelt? How far does partisanship take you before you admit, “yes this is a scandal” ? Doesn’t this warrant further investigation? What did he know and when did he know it?

Side note: Peggy Noonan supported Obama in 2008. I still haven’t forgiven her for that. but she can sure cut through the heart of the matter.

No one died in Watergate - but a president was brought down.

Ishii

Methinks something is rotten in the state of Denmark. However, NEVER count Hillary, the comeback kid’s wife, out. Just like Reagan withstood the Iran Contra scandal due to his grandfatherly personality and better-than-average acting skills.

 

[LisaA]

Methinks something is rotten in the state of Denmark. However, NEVER count Hillary, the comeback kid’s wife, out. Just like Reagan withstood the Iran Contra scandal due to his grandfatherly personality and better-than-average acting skills.

Reagan was above all, likable. So was Clinton, else he wouldn’t have survived Monica and the impeachment.

Hillary is not likable. Her voice is like fingernails on a chalkboard…women simply cannot raise their voices without sounding like harridans. The “what does it matter” screech with her fists in the air was detestable. I think the media was biding its time, waiting for a chance to toss her. Now they have it.

Obama is hiding out, not defending his former SoS. Speaks volumes. He’s hoping none of the stink comes off and lands on him.

Lisa

 

[meltzerboy]

Reagan was above all, likable. So was Clinton, else he wouldn’t have survived Monica and the impeachment.

Hillary is not likable. Her voice is like fingernails on a chalkboard…women simply cannot raise their voices without sounding like harridans. The “what does it matter” screech with her fists in the air was detestable. I think the media was biding its time, waiting for a chance to toss her. Now they have it.

Obama is hiding out, not defending his former SoS. Speaks volumes. He’s hoping none of the stink comes off and lands on him.

Lisa

Throwing Hillary under the bus, you think? Sounds reasonable, if detestable. But she has wiggled out of other situations, including Whitewater, Rosewater, and Travelgate, so, if she decides the timing is right for the Presidential bid in 2016, given that Americans have rather short memories, I still wouldn’t count her out. And she does have a high favorability rating at present, except among conservatives, of course.

 

[LisaA]

Throwing Hillary under the bus, you think? Sounds reasonable, if detestable. But she has wiggled out of other situations, including Whitewater, Rosewater, and Travelgate, so, if she decides the timing is right for the Presidential bid in 2016, given that Americans have rather short memories, I still wouldn’t count her out. And she does have a high favorability rating at present, except among conservatives, of course.

You’re right that she should never be counted out, especially if Bill wants her in the Oval Office. He has quite a bit of sway. I suspect he was a big factor in Obama’s re-election. Until he spoke at the DNC it was a snore fest and abortapalooza.

Again I find Mrs Clinton’s favorability rating quite fascinating. I want to say based on what exactly? But given that America handed over the Presidency to someone who had even fewer credentials, nothing would surprise me.

Still I think this is going to be a problem even as far off as 2016. Before that time a new star might emerge on either side of the aisle. The media likes bright shiny objects and Mrs Clinton will be a bit tarnished even then.

Lisa

 

[meltzerboy]

You’re right that she should never be counted out, especially if Bill wants her in the Oval Office. He has quite a bit of sway. I suspect he was a big factor in Obama’s re-election. Until he spoke at the DNC it was a snore fest and abortapalooza.

Again I find Mrs Clinton’s favorability rating quite fascinating. I want to say based on what exactly? But given that America handed over the Presidency to someone who had even fewer credentials, nothing would surprise me.

Still I think this is going to be a problem even as far off as 2016. Before that time a new star might emerge on either side of the aisle. The media likes bright shiny objects and Mrs Clinton will be a bit tarnished even then.

Lisa

If she’s wise, she won’t even run again, and instead let another woman be the first. Why ANYONE would want to be President, especially in this day and age, is beyond me. But ego and ambition are powerful motivators on both sides of the aisle. Bright shiny objects: that’s a good way of putting it.

 

[BroomWagon]

Methinks something is rotten in the state of Denmark. However, NEVER count Hillary, the comeback kid’s wife, out. Just like Reagan withstood the Iran Contra scandal due to his grandfatherly personality and better-than-average acting skills.

Hillary’s history, Bill Clinton despicably ruined a woman’s life. This will come down to a fight between the Clintons and Obamas eventually. The Democrats will be running Biden in 2016.

 

[meltzerboy]

Hillary’s history, Bill Clinton despicably ruined a woman’s life. This will come down to a fight between the Clintons and Obamas eventually. The Democrats will be running Biden in 2016.

Yes, I notice Joe is not defending Hillary either.

 

[ishii]

Methinks something is rotten in the state of Denmark. However, NEVER count Hillary, the comeback kid’s wife, out. Just like Reagan withstood the Iran Contra scandal due to his grandfatherly personality and better-than-average acting skills.

Apparently ABC news thinks so too. Or atleast Jonathan Karl thinks so. I don’t know how Iran-Contra stacks up against Benghazi - Iran-Contra apparently was arms for hostages. Some of the proceeds from the arms sale went to arm the Nicaraguan Contras. Reagan certainly did what he did - he apparently violated the “Boland Amendment” which prohibited funding the Contras. Who knows. It it seems the current scandal is all about helping Obama get elected. Diplmomats killed? Let’s lie about it to help our re-election. Peggy Noonan is right - with Obama, its always about politics and CYA.

Ishii

 

[_Abyssinia]

Stephen Hayes tweeted:

Fox’s @JamesRosenFNC reports that “several more” #Benghazi whistleblowers are considering coming forward, including CIA officials.

twitter.com/stephenfhayes/statuses/332919320327892992

Apart from more whistleblowers, the following people also need to testify:

Abc news reported

“Those talking points originated from the intelligence community. They reflect the IC’s best assessments of what they thought had happened,” Carney told reporters at the White House press briefing on November 28, 2012. “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.”

abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/exclusive-benghazi-talking-points-underwent-12-revisions-scrubbed-of-terror-references

It is known that 12 revisions were made to the talking points and the changes were a lot more than changing the words Jay Carney said. Also Carney said at yesterday’s press briefing that before Susan Rice went out on the Sunday talk shows that there was no hard evidence that Al Qaeda linked extremists were linked to the attack. That is not accurate because soon after the Benghazi attack they had multiple sources saying that the attack was linked to an Al Qaeda linked group:

1. 
   *]On September 12th, CIA station chief in Libya set a cable to Washington that reported that eyewitnesses said extremists involved in the attack had ties to Al Qaeda.
   
   *]National Security Agency intercepted correspondence between two Al Qaeda-linked extremists and one extremist reported to the other extremist that he had been part of the attack in Benghazi.
   
   *]Libyan officials in the government by the end of the week had said extremists with ties to Al Qaeda were involved in the attack.
   
   *]On September 12th an email from acting assistant secretary for near eastern affairs at the State Department, Beth Jones, said that the group that did the attack was
   

   affiliated with Islamic terrorists

   cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50146437n
   
   State department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland needs to be questioned because she said in an email to the White House about having information in the talking points referencing Al Qaeda linked extremists that it
   

   …could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either? Concerned …”

   abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/exclusive-benghazi-talking-points-underwent-12-revisions-scrubbed-of-terror-references
   
   In the CIA first draft it said the attack in Benghazi was inspired by protests in Cairo but in the abc news article, CIA draft it also said:
   

   That being said, we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.

   Victoria Nuland did not want to name the group because, ‘we don’t want to prejudice the investigation.’ But if the CIA were confident enough to say that extremist with ties to Al Qaeda had been in the attack, why would naming them prejudice the investigation?
   
   Hillary Clinton needs to be questioned again. Why weren’t Ambassador Stevens requests before the Benghazi attack for security met? with a military base in Italy, why wasn’t extra security sent to Benghazi after the first alert on September 11th? And I am personally skeptical that she did not confirm or have knowledge of the revisions that were made to the talking points? And why did Hillary Clinton blame the anti Islam video given the fact that she spoke with Greg Hicks at 2:00am after the Benghazi attack, and Greg Hicks said he briefed her.
   
   Deputy national security advisor Ben Rhodes needs to be questioned. On the following Saturday to the attack I believe, according to the Weekly Standard, Ben Rhodes said that issues with the talking points would be resolved in a meeting at the White house the next morning with Admin officials. there was a meeting at the White House which addressed concerns further brought up by Victoria Nuland who had previously said that the revisions on the talking points did not, ‘resolve all my issues or those of my building leadership.’
   
   General Petreus needs to be questioned again because he said about the final talking points:
   

   “These will not respond to what Rupersberger asked for and I’d just as soon not use them. They won’t even let us add the Cairo warning. But it’s their call (national security staff). Thanks for your work.”

   therightscoop.com/petraeus-didnt-like-final-benghazi-talking-points-id-just-as-soon-not-use-them
   
   Longtime aide of the Clinton’s, Sheryl Mills allegedly demoted Greg Hicks and needs to be questioned on why she did that.

 

[_Abyssinia]

White House and/or state department need to release all of the Benghazi related emails which Jay Carney said they would not release. What have they got to hide? I am speculating but is there something in the emails which says the White House said something should be taken out of the talking points? There needs to be transparency.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Jay Carney said all the Benghazi related would not be released. I am speculating but is there something in the emails which says the White House said something should be taken out of the talking points? What are they hiding if anything? There needs to be transparency.

 

[Tampa_Dave]

I pay my lawful taxes, observe my Catholic faith, watch or attend sporting events, and otherwise enjoy life. American politics? I no longer care who America elects to office. The GOP is irrelevant and I want nothing to do with Democrats. Best to stay home and put the Indians game on.

 

[BroomWagon]

Actually, they can probably claim National Security on this affair which could partly dispel claims of Transparency, I would not want to defend the Administration per se but since this could be about running arms to the Syrian Rebels or something of that calibre, they could. Since they may have allied themselves with Rebels and things got murky, they could.

 

[livingwordunity]

I pay my lawful taxes, observe my Catholic faith, watch or attend sporting events, and otherwise enjoy life. American politics? I no longer care who America elects to office. The GOP is irrelevant and I want nothing to do with Democrats. Best to stay home and put the Indians game on.

Democrats want all the conservative voters to give up so that nothing will stand in their way of fundamentally changing America.

 

[Brendan]

Yes! With any luck, this will be Obama’s Watergate. It seems to have it all: lies, cover-up, and conspiracy.

And, on top of that, no one died in the Watergate break in. So really, it’s even worse.

 

[Tampa_Dave]

Democrats want all the conservative voters to give up so that nothing will stand in their way of fundamentally changing America.

Changing demographics will give liberals and Democrats permanent majority status IMO. My vote has become largely irrelevant, so I avoid involvement in the American political process and focus exclusively on daily life and my Catholic faith. Apathy is rewarding in and of itself. Obama spoke at my daughter’s graduation from Ohio State last Sunday. The vast majority of spectators cheered him like a conquering hero. I simply grabbed a hot dog, slapped on the stadium mustard, and let his words drift harmlessly by. Not one bit of angst or consternation. Before the November election, I would have been tied up in knots. Life is good.

 

[iamrefreshed]

What I find utterly disgusting is the continued demonstrations of cowardice and lack of integrity among Obama, his administration and Mrs Clinton.
Lisa

What I find most disgusting is regular Americans on CAF defending it.

 

[iamrefreshed]

Methinks something is rotten in the state of Denmark. However, NEVER count Hillary, the comeback kid’s wife, out. Just like Reagan withstood the Iran Contra scandal due to his grandfatherly personality and better-than-average acting skills.

I dislike the comparison of Iran-Contra to Benghazi. The former was done with good intentions and patriotism. The latter out of selfishness and greed.