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

[LisaA]

Between the Weekly Standard’s inadvertent blunder and the New York Times article, I think it’s safe to say that the connections between Benghazi, Cairo et al, and the Youtube video have a pretty solid provenance.

Hence, no “smokescreen” by State or the White House.

Media Matters…but of COURSE!

Oh my this is great. This is supposed to be news? The YouTube was mentioned in an early draft but had been totally debunked long before Rice went on the Sunday shows or before Obama mentioned it something like six times in his speech to the UN.

BTW just to show you how they are rabid in attacking anything opposing the Great One’s continued baloney tour, they are now even going after Maureen Dowd, attacking HER recent column where she actually roundly criticized the usual suspects (Right Wing, conservatives, bloggers) but said that leaving the people to die in Benghazi was totally unworthy of a country like the US.

How DARE she?

The Left eats its young if they get out of line.

Lisa

 

[LisaA]

Absolutely, I have heard these points brought up before. You refuted this well, the budget cuts would not have had an effect.

One Dem even claimed it was the Sequester!

Lisa

 

[BroomWagon]

One Dem even claimed it was the Sequester!

Lisa

I don’t mean to be disrespectful of news sources, it might be like if someone posted the Blaze to prove their point though.

Really, there is enough media to rely on and as it stands, NBC has been caught doing the worst in my view when they aired doctored 911 on George Zimmerman to make him appear racist.

It’s rather easy in that light to stick up at least for Fox News and I’m not saying they are perfect but overall, they haven’t been caught doing things NBC, CNN, ABC have done and what CBS did back in the day with that story on Bush.

I would say be skeptical of all news media but I don’t think the news media will totally ignore this now.

MMfA started with the help of $2 million in donations from liberal philanthropists connected to the Democratic party. According to Byron York, additional funding came from MoveOn.org and the New Democrat Network.[16][17][18]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Matters_for_America

Totally partisan for the Democratic party.

 

[meltzerboy]

And now the Justice Department incident regarding the Associated Press reporters’ personal records.This seems to involve a foiled Al Qaeda terrorist attempt. When Rachel Maddow and Michael Isikoff are critical of what’s going on in the Obama administration, it’s like LBJ’s losing Walter Cronkite’s support for the Vietnam War. The common thread, if there is one, concerning the Benghazi terrorist attack, the IRS Tea-Party records, and the Justice Department dragnet involving the AP appears to be US foreign policy in relation to Al Qaeda. As of now, we have only bits and pieces of these extraordinary news stories, but, in my view, none of this bodes well for the White House, let alone the country. Well, at least we have a better idea about what’s going to preoccupy the second term of Obama’s administration.

 

[colmywaykurtz]

Yeah, shoot the messenger and 'chute the message. I expected nothing else.

I didn’t have any illusions about changing any of your minds. But I know a lot of people lurk here, and I just might change a few of their minds. That’s the real objective of my post.

 

[estesbob]

Yeah, shoot the messenger and 'chute the message. I expected nothing else.

I didn’t have any illusions about changing any of your minds. But I know a lot of people lurk here, and I just might change a few of their minds. That’s the real objective of my post.

There was no message. People werent shooting, they were laughing

 

[LisaA]

Yeah, shoot the messenger and 'chute the message. I expected nothing else.

I didn’t have any illusions about changing any of your minds. But I know a lot of people lurk here, and I just might change a few of their minds. That’s the real objective of my post.

colm I read liberal sites as well. As I said, MM is now after Maureen Dowd who is solidly Left of center and usually championing Obama. If you read the text you see how they pick and choose, making inferences but not really drawing any conclusions.

The video story was apparently in one early CIA report. It was not in the reports from those on the scene and the drone didn’t record any protestors. There were communications from Islamists and at least one group taking credit. The Libyan president himself said it was a terrorist attack. Not a WORD about the video. Given the number of protests related to the video, it was a reasonable suspicion before information was gathered. However it was quickly debunked by multiple sources. There seems to be no other reason than political cover to push this narrative.

If Rice and Clinton and Obama had simply said we don’t know, the situation is fluid, we’re gathering information and don’t want to impede the investigation blah blah blah, then your story might have some credibility.

But their insistence on The Video Did It made them look like fools at best and dishonest at worst.

Lisa

 

[BroomWagon]

Okay, so Media Matters and The Nation are ‘messengers’.

Mark Levin: 'Criminal Front Group, Media Matters, Continues Its Hate Campaign Against Dr. Carson’

 

[colmywaykurtz]

There was no message. People werent shooting, they were laughing

It’s a metaphor, bob. The site was the messenger, the article was the message, understand?

 

[ishii]

It’s a metaphor, bob. The site was the messenger, the article was the message, understand?

colmywaykurtz - I’ll offer you something much more believable and credible than a left -wing blog: it is the transcript of Obama’s speech to the UN on September 25th, two weeks after the attack - in which Obama says: " there’s no VIDEO that justifies an ***ATTACK ON AN EMBASSY" ***

nytimes.com/2012/09/26/world/obamas-speech-to-the-united-nations-general-assembly-text.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Wake up and smell the roses - your president is corrupt, absolutely.

Ishii

 

[meltzerboy]

colmywaykurtz - I’ll offer you something much more believable and credible than a left -wing blog: it is the transcript of Obama’s speech to the UN on September 25th, two weeks after the attack - in which Obama says: " there’s no VIDEO that justifies an ***ATTACK ON AN EMBASSY" ***

nytimes.com/2012/09/26/world/obamas-speech-to-the-united-nations-general-assembly-text.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Wake up and smell the roses - your president is corrupt, absolutely.

Ishii

So what does this mean? Did Obama ever say that a video JUSTIFIES an attack on an embassy, which is not the same as saying that a video might incite an attack?

 

[ishii]

So what does this mean? Did Obama ever say that a video JUSTIFIES an attack on an embassy, which is not the same as saying that a video might incite an attack?

Meltzerboy, looking at the context of his remarks - it seems to me he is saying three things:

1. There was a video that was offensive to Islam.
2. This video inspired fanatics to attack an embassy.
3. No matter how offensive a video might be, it does not justify an attack on an embassy.

How do you interpret the remarks?

Ishii

 

[meltzerboy]

Meltzerboy, looking at the context of his remarks - it seems to me he is saying three things:

1. There was a video that was offensive to Islam.
2. This video inspired fanatics to attack an embassy.
3. No matter how offensive a video might be, it does not justify an attack on an embassy.

How do you interpret the remarks?

Ishii

I interpret the third comment as meaning it does not MORALLY justify an attack on an embassy. I don’t see an internal inconsistency in these remarks. If, on the other hand, you are arguing that the video story was fabricated for political purposes, then the remarks take on a different meaning in that Obama is sticking with his video origin of the attack at this time rather than confirming the act of terror was premeditated. Is that what you mean?

 

[_Abyssinia]

Three questions that need answering:

1. Was there an instigator who wanted the taking points changed? If so, who?
2. Why did Obama, Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice blame the anti Islam video when there were multiple sources saying that the attack was an Al Qaeda linked group.
3. Who gave the stand down order which prevented US Special forces from protecting the consulate in Benghazi?

Dana Loesch asked in an interview with Missouri Congresswoman Ann Wagner, ‘Because you have been an ambassador, you have been overseas with similar responsibilities and similar missions – who gives such an order to stand down? Where does that come from?’

Ann Wagner said, ‘The President of the United States.’

That is not definitive proof and proof to find out who gave that stand down order is vital.

 

[BroomWagon]

Only the President of the United States can give a Stand Down order. 2 different ones were given.

Reading the Media Matters pieces, comments where Media Matters doesn’t censor dissent pretty well refute their propaganda.

 

[colmywaykurtz]

colmywaykurtz - I’ll offer you something much more believable and credible than a left -wing blog: it is the transcript of Obama’s speech to the UN on September 25th, two weeks after the attack - in which Obama says: " there’s no VIDEO that justifies an ***ATTACK ON AN EMBASSY" ***

nytimes.com/2012/09/26/world/obamas-speech-to-the-united-nations-general-assembly-text.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Wake up and smell the roses - your president is corrupt, absolutely.

Ishii

If you can get over your ideological myopia (centering on the blog) and look past it to the article to which it links nytimes.com/2012/10/16/world/africa/election-year-stakes-overshadow-nuances-of-benghazi-investigation.html?_r=2&ref=world&pagewanted=all&

you might be led to a different conclusion, izzi.

By the way, who is YOUR president?

 

[twoshoes]

meltzerboy this adoration of “diversity” is not an American value…E PLUBUS UNUM not out of many, a bunch of fragmented identities based on where our forefathers originated.

The point about Obama is that he does not inculcate American values. I truly do not think he likes the America envisioned by our Founding Fathers…he speaks of that R#$&($&($&
Constitution and Congress getting hin his way. He talked about FUNDAMENTALLY TRANSFORMING AMERICA…not about making it better, making it great, making it the Shining City on a Hill. NO, he wants to TRANSFORM America and IMO into some kind of quasi European social democracy, complete with crony capitalism, a huge social services network and Soma for all of those who raise an objection.

I don’t recall who wrote the article in the WSJ “An Alien in the White House” but it was spot on in my opinion. Obama is not American in his heart even if he is American by birth or by (half) of his heritage. He did not have a normal upbringing. His mother and his grandparents were very far to the Left. He was raised in a Leftist, radical stew of activism and anger against the man and the machine.

Obama may seem normal to those on the Upper East Side but he is not normal to a lot of us. He is a Leftist elite who would be better suited to the halls of academia than running the greatest “business” and military power in the world. Now I’m not one of those who thinks he is trying to destroy America but he’s doing a pretty good job of it intentionally or not.

Lisa

He and would be better served in the service of Our Lord, not his own ego. I’m sorry if this sounds judgemental, it’s what I feel, I see no light in his works.

 

[colmywaykurtz]

and the Justice Department dragnet involving the AP appears to be US foreign policy in relation to Al Qaeda.

Now, on this, I have a very different opinion than on Benghazi. The Justice Department DOES look like it’s up to no good with this. This is the government monkeying around with the 1st Amendment. Unacceptable, if it’s what it appears to be.

 

[twoshoes]

One Dem even claimed it was the Sequester!

Lisa

Least we forget there is an American polictical prisoner in jail now for his using his 1st Amendment right to free speech by this administration. I hear he is a man of low character, this too could be media spin, I do not know, It makes no difference, he is still in jail by this administration and we hear no up roar about this.

O’ well he is only one disenfranchise human. Tongue in Cheek.

 

[oldcelt]

Now, on this, I have a very different opinion than on Benghazi. The Justice Department DOES look like it’s up to no good with this. This is the government monkeying around with the 1st Amendment. Unacceptable, if it’s what it appears to be.

I agree…if the DOJ went forward with wiretaps on reporter lines without taking the various steps that must precede such an action, then this is a major issue.It is very early in this one, but the President needs to get out in front and swing all the doors open…now.