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

[rlg94086]

Oh my!! You didn’t just say *that *did you?

What, specifically, is the “that” which has you excited?

 

[RACJ]

More breaking news on Fox!

I don’t get you sarcasm, Nim. Four unprotected dead and many wounded in Benghazi, intimidation of conservatives by the IRS and purloining of records of our “free” press. I need a good laugh, so maybe you could clue us in as to what is so humorous. Rob

 

[_Abyssinia]

‘Lew took the first step by requesting and accepting the resignation of the acting director of the IRS,’ Obama said.

‘It’s important,’ he added, ‘to institute new leadership that can help restore confidence going forward.’

But in an email to IRS employees, Miller claimed he would only be leaving next month because his assignment would be over.

‘It is with regret that I will be departing from the IRS as my acting assignment ends in early June,’ Miller wrote. ‘This has been an incredibly difficult time for the IRS given the events of the past few days, and there is a strong and immediate need to restore public trust in the nation’s tax agency.’

My emphases.

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2325223/Obama-fires-acting-IRS-commissioner-pressure-grows-surrounding-political-targeting-conservative-groups-sought-tax-exempt-status.html

 

[ProVobis]

nation’s tax agency

Technically that’s Congress but that’s another thread.

 

[BroomWagon]

Technically that’s Congress but that’s another thread.

Oh is it? So you are defending Richard Nixon against article 2 of the impeachment proceedings drawn up against him?

Article 2
Using the powers of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, impairing the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, or contravening the laws governing agencies of the executive branch and the purposed of these agencies.

This conduct has included one or more of the following:

He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, endeavoured to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposed not authorized by law, and to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigations to be intitiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.

historyplace.com/unitedstates/impeachments/nixon.htm?iframe=true&width=100%&height=100%

Nixon used the IRS but hey, only congress has the power to collect taxes. I understand.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Now, we don’t know if Obama did this but clearly, it appears the executive branch and not congress is who is being looked at in this situation.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Benghazi Emails Directly Contradict White House Claims

It has been claimed Ambassador Susan Rice becoming the National Security Adviser is ‘definitely happening’ says an unnamed source

thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/05/15/will_benghazi_furor_keep_susan_rice_out_of_the_white_house

 

[LisaA]

Benghazi Emails Directly Contradict White House Claims

It has been claimed Ambassador Susan Rice becoming the National Security Adviser is ‘definitely happening’ says an unnamed source

thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/05/15/will_benghazi_furor_keep_susan_rice_out_of_the_white_house

Note this paragraph:

As striking as what appears in the email traffic is what does not. There is no mention of the YouTube video that would become a central part of the administration’s explanation of the attacks to the American people until a brief mention in the subject line of emails coming out of an important meeting where further revisions were made.

Last night Kirsten Powers (a Democrat) was on O’Reilly and said openly that the President needs to quit lying about what he said following the attacks. When pressed about his motives she demurred but the other guest who is a Republcan said 'Because he has been playing word games all along and so far he’s gotten away with it."

That makes sense to me. He has had cover from the press, the WH Press Secretary, in this case Clinton as well. Has he become SO arrogant that he thinks no one notices? It’s like that old fairy tale about the Emperor Has No Clothes.

Press conference tonight with Obama…should be interesting. Would love to have him hooked to a lie detector.

Lisa

 

[Nimzovik]

I don’t get you sarcasm, Nim. Four unprotected dead and many wounded in Benghazi, intimidation of conservatives by the IRS and purloining of records of our “free” press. I need a good laugh, so maybe you could clue us in as to what is so humorous. Rob

No, no, no, I concur with you.

 

[BroomWagon]

Note this paragraph:

As striking as what appears in the email traffic is what does not. There is no mention of the YouTube video that would become a central part of the administration’s explanation of the attacks to the American people until a brief mention in the subject line of emails coming out of an important meeting where further revisions were made.

Last night Kirsten Powers (a Democrat) was on O’Reilly and said openly that the President needs to quit lying about what he said following the attacks. When pressed about his motives she demurred but the other guest who is a Republcan said 'Because he has been playing word games all along and so far he’s gotten away with it."

That makes sense to me. He has had cover from the press, the WH Press Secretary, in this case Clinton as well. Has he become SO arrogant that he thinks no one notices? It’s like that old fairy tale about the Emperor Has No Clothes.

Press conference tonight with Obama…should be interesting. Would love to have him hooked to a lie detector.

Lisa

That’s exactly it, there is no reason to believe anything they say. Lying.

Then imagine theories that people think are real wild like those of mass shooters in Colorado and Connecticut and some people say oh the federal government fixed that to happen to encourage gun control and one believes it is outrageous to even think that.

But you have all these things going on so the administration and political party find they can not be trusted about anything and the stories are getting wilder, the rights of Americans downright disrespected now illegally besides their points of view to begin with.

IRS being sued for stealing patients health records: humanevents.com/2013/05/15/irs-sued-for-stealing-the-medical-records-of-10-million-americans/ , I doubt if the full amount would be awarded but the full amount is $250 billion. Great.

Now, we are hearing the wire tapping may extend to phone tapping the House of Representatives.

So it’s mind boggling and close to impossible to believe what President Obama may say.

The Benghazi papers as said seem to contradict the White House statements as said. As if this was going to help.

Their life views of the most innocent are so bankrupt, these people have shown themselves to be the worst now. Have no goodwill.

 

[_Abyssinia]

GOP demands more despite Benghazi email release

Rep Jason Chaffetz has said there are 25000 documents on Benghazi.

Holder Says “No” To Special Counsel For Benghazi

State fretted over Benghazi talking points

The Benghazi Emails: What Do They Show?

 

[_Abyssinia]

Note this paragraph:

As striking as what appears in the email traffic is what does not. There is no mention of the YouTube video that would become a central part of the administration’s explanation of the attacks to the American people until a brief mention in the subject line of emails coming out of an important meeting where further revisions were made.

Last night Kirsten Powers (a Democrat) was on O’Reilly and said openly that the President needs to quit lying about what he said following the attacks. When pressed about his motives she demurred but the other guest who is a Republcan said 'Because he has been playing word games all along and so far he’s gotten away with it."

That makes sense to me. He has had cover from the press, the WH Press Secretary, in this case Clinton as well. Has he become SO arrogant that he thinks no one notices? It’s like that old fairy tale about the Emperor Has No Clothes.

Press conference tonight with Obama…should be interesting. Would love to have him hooked to a lie detector.

Lisa

Who said to blame the anti Islam video? Was it one individual, was it multiple people who brought up the idea? A name or names are needed.

 

[_Abyssinia]

The Benghazi emails: what do they show?

This afternoon the White House released 100 pages of emails that trace the development of the talking points about Benghazi that Susan Rice eventually used on her notorious tour of the Sunday morning news shows, and that formed the basis for much of what the Obama administration said about the attacks for weeks afterward. This is the original version of the talking points that came out of the CIA, with slight revisions. Note that this initial version is ambiguous, reflecting what was probably genuine uncertainty on the part of the drafters. Note, too, that there is no reference to any YouTube video:

http://3-ps.googleusercontent.com/h...kingPoints057.jpg.pagespeed.ic.2_pzIQCSM8.jpg

The CIA said that “[t]he currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US consulate and subsequently its annex.” On the other hand, it also says, “we do know that Islamic extremists participated in the violent demonstrations,” and refers to “numerous” prior warnings by the CIA and prior attacks carried out by “extremists linked to al Qaeda” in Benghazi and eastern Libya. Further, it notes reports that Ansar al-Sharia was involved. What happened over the ensuing 24 hours or so is that this initial summary was watered down to the point where it was virtually devoid of content.

Several significant points emerge from the emails. First, as has been widely reported, it was the State Department that drove the dumbing down of the talking points. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland–”Toria” to her friends, evidently–represented the department in the negotiations over Benghazi. She was particularly concerned that the public not get the impression that the Obama administration had been warned about the potential for violence in Benghazi:

http://2-ps.googleusercontent.com/h...NulandEmail01.jpg.pagespeed.ic.lwoBdc9Ki_.jpg

Democratic Party political operative David Adams weighed in on Ms. Nuland’s side:

http://3-ps.googleusercontent.com/h...damsEmail0029.jpg.pagespeed.ic.xYtzaDrsHo.jpg

This email refers to the State Department’s “deep concerns about mentioning the warnings.” We certainly wouldn’t want it to get out that the Obama administration had been repeatedly warned of the potential for terrorist violence in Benghazi!

http://1-ps.googleusercontent.com/h...epConcerns987.jpg.pagespeed.ic.xTcN52KAqK.jpg

The emails make another key point crystal clear: the administration molded the talking points for the specific purpose of counteracting the news, which was already starting to get traction, that what happened in Benghazi was a planned terrorist attack:

http://1-ps.googleusercontent.com/h...ietorEmail074.jpg.pagespeed.ic.uw-_MHXxlA.jpg

In Congress, “they all think it was premeditated,” so we need to “correct the record.” In fact, though, it was premeditated, as everyone now knows. Furthermore, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was already well aware, based on her famous 2 a.m. conversation with Greg Hicks, that the attack was premeditated; that there was no demonstration; that armed terrorists assaulted the Benghazi compound and overran it. Yet Hillary Clinton did not participate in the email communications, and she apparently never communicated what she learned from Hicks to anyone involved in the messaging process.

Not only that, the emails show that the FBI had already concluded that al Qaeda (not just al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb) was involved. Yet this information never saw the light of day:

http://1-ps.googleusercontent.com/h...AlQaedaFBI077.jpg.pagespeed.ic.G8TNa-s-Lg.jpg

I have not seen this reported anywhere. It strikes me as a blockbuster revelation.

As the email communications played out, Hillary was entirely absent. So who ran the show? Another striking fact about the emails is that the process was driven entirely by political operatives. The process was run by Ben Rhodes, an Obama speechwriter; Tommy Vietor, who started out driving a van for Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign; and David Adams. Even David Petraeus was a mere flunky; he said that he would rather not use the watered-down talking points, but the Obama administration was not interested in his opinion:

http://1-ps.googleusercontent.com/h...raeusEmail073.jpg.pagespeed.ic._BCXYOQACq.jpg

As the talking points finally emerged from the administration’s political process, they lacked any reference to the many warnings the CIA had given about the potential for terrorist attacks in Benghazi, or the actual attacks that had already taken place there. They didn’t mention Ansar al-Sharia. But they didn’t refer to any YouTube videos, either:

http://3-ps.googleusercontent.com/h...ingPoints0662.jpg.pagespeed.ic.ULfBdVGK_l.jpg

---

 

[_Abyssinia]

Which brings us to the penultimate significant point: the email threads manifest a strong concern with what Susan Rice would say on the Sunday morning news shows. That drove the rush to get the talking points finalized. Yet, what Rice actually said bore little relation to anything that went before. Her harping on the YouTube video had no support in any version of the talking points, and her insistence that there was no evidence of a planned attack was flatly contradicted by the original version of the talking points, and only tenuously supported by the final version.

So the final question is: where was Hillary Clinton in this process? Based on her conversation with Greg Hicks, she knew that the assault was planned, and that it was carried out by terrorists armed with RPGs and mortars. She knew that there was no demonstration over a video, or anything else. And yet she allowed her colleague Susan Rice to spin a web of lies to mislead the American people. Is Hillary Clinton an absent, inept manager who has little to do with what happens in the department she ostensibly runs? Or is Benghazi just one more example of an administration that cares nothing about policy, and everything about politics–an administration that is endlessly willing to subvert the truth for political ends? My own judgment is: certainly the latter, perhaps the former.

powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/05/the-benghazi-emails-what-do-they-show.php

 

[_Abyssinia]

Which brings us to the penultimate significant point: the email threads manifest a strong concern with what Susan Rice would say on the Sunday morning news shows. That drove the rush to get the talking points finalized. Yet, what Rice actually said bore little relation to anything that went before. Her harping on the YouTube video had no support in any version of the talking points, and her insistence that there was no evidence of a planned attack was flatly contradicted by the original version of the talking points, and only tenuously supported by the final version.

So the final question is: where was Hillary Clinton in this process? Based on her conversation with Greg Hicks, she knew that the assault was planned, and that it was carried out by terrorists armed with RPGs and mortars. She knew that there was no demonstration over a video, or anything else. And yet she allowed her colleague Susan Rice to spin a web of lies to mislead the American people. Is Hillary Clinton an absent, inept manager who has little to do with what happens in the department she ostensibly runs? Or is Benghazi just one more example of an administration that cares nothing about policy, and everything about politics–an administration that is endlessly willing to subvert the truth for political ends? My own judgment is: certainly the latter, perhaps the former.

powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/05/the-benghazi-emails-what-do-they-show.php

 

[LisaA]

From the John Hinderacker piece above:

Is Hillary Clinton an absent, inept manager who has little to do with what happens in the department she ostensibly runs? Or is Benghazi just one more example of an administration that cares nothing about policy, and everything about politics–an administration that is endlessly willing to subvert the truth for political ends? My own judgment is: certainly the latter, perhaps the former.

One thing that came out in the email exchange that was different than my first understanding of hiding the truth; that they were worried about Congress and the public finding out that they had been repeatedly warned about potential attacks. I had thought that more likely they were hiding the AlQaeda connection in the run up to the election since it did not fit the Obama DNC narrative. So there was concern about their ineptness which is both quite apparent and the most important issue in Benghazi.

I was never of the mind that Mrs Clinton had the background and experience to run State. Despite all the rave reviews, the reality is that she was disengaged at best and incompentent at worst. Maybe a perfect storm of both.

That both Clinton and Obama were absent from the documents RELEASED does not mean they were not involved.

Lisa

 

[qui_est_ce]

From the John Hinderacker piece above:

Is Hillary Clinton an absent, inept manager who has little to do with what happens in the department she ostensibly runs? Or is Benghazi just one more example of an administration that cares nothing about policy, and everything about politics–an administration that is endlessly willing to subvert the truth for political ends? My own judgment is: certainly the latter, perhaps the former.

One thing that came out in the email exchange that was different than my first understanding of hiding the truth; that they were worried about Congress and the public finding out that they had been repeatedly warned about potential attacks. I had thought that more likely they were hiding the AlQaeda connection in the run up to the election since it did not fit the Obama DNC narrative. So there was concern about their ineptness which is both quite apparent and the most important issue in Benghazi.

I was never of the mind that Mrs Clinton had the background and experience to run State. Despite all the rave reviews, the reality is that she was disengaged at best and incompentent at worst. Maybe a perfect storm of both.

That both Clinton and Obama were absent from the documents RELEASED does not mean they were not involved.

Lisa

What I want to know is how do these things slip out without approval? Can anybody just put out a memo without approval?

According Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama they just read off whatever was handed to them. I find that very difficult to belief. Especially Mrs. Clinton whose job it is to keep informed. Maybe Obama relied on Hillary?

 

[_Abyssinia]

From the John Hinderacker piece above:

Is Hillary Clinton an absent, inept manager who has little to do with what happens in the department she ostensibly runs? Or is Benghazi just one more example of an administration that cares nothing about policy, and everything about politics–an administration that is endlessly willing to subvert the truth for political ends? My own judgment is: certainly the latter, perhaps the former.

One thing that came out in the email exchange that was different than my first understanding of hiding the truth; that they were worried about Congress and the public finding out that they had been repeatedly warned about potential attacks. I had thought that more likely they were hiding the AlQaeda connection in the run up to the election since it did not fit the Obama DNC narrative. So there was concern about their ineptness which is both quite apparent and the most important issue in Benghazi.

I was never of the mind that Mrs Clinton had the background and experience to run State. Despite all the rave reviews, the reality is that she was disengaged at best and incompentent at worst. Maybe a perfect storm of both.

That both Clinton and Obama were absent from the documents RELEASED does not mean they were not involved.

Lisa

Rep Jason Chaffetz said there were 25000 documents on Benghazi. 100 emails of White House and/or State Department’s choosing were released. I am skeptical if they released all the emails related to Benghazi.

 

[_Abyssinia]

What I want to know is how do these things slip out without approval? Can anybody just put out a memo without approval?

According Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama they just read off whatever was handed to them. I find that very difficult to belief. Especially Mrs. Clinton whose job it is to keep informed. Maybe Obama relied on Hillary?

After the CIA made revisions to the talking points including cutting references to Ansar al Sharia, Victoria Nuland sent an email which said the revisions did not ‘resolve all my issues or those of my building leadership.’ Who is ‘building leadership?’ The leader in the State Department was Hillary Clinton. Is that who Nuland was referring too? This needs to be discovered.

 

[Nimzovik]

Outstanding post. Simply outstanding. Thankyou.

 

[qui_est_ce]

After the CIA made revisions to the talking points including cutting references to Ansar al Sharia, Victoria Nuland sent an email which said the revisions did not ‘resolve all my issues or those of my building leadership.’ Who is ‘building leadership?’ The leader in the State Department was Hillary Clinton. Is that who Nuland was referring too? This needs to be discovered.

“Building Leadership” Code for Hillary? I never heard of the term “building leadership.”