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.
_Abyssinia said:
WH Benghazi emails have different quotes than earlier reported
Click to expand...
Is there an explanation?
Click to expand...
As TheBlaze reported earlier this week, this story isn’t new; disparities between the e-mails were already highlighted by CNN’s Jake Tapper earlier this week, as the host also noted that Rhodes didn’t mention the State Department in his official Benghazi correspondence.
Click to expand...
While a possible explanation is not mentioned in Garrett’s report, TheBlaze previously highlighted one possible reason for the difference in wording. Here’s a portion of our previous report, which provides some context:
Click to expand...
Code: 
Tapper, who previously worked at ABC, reports that “whoever provided those accounts seemingly invented the notion that Rhodes wanted the concerns of the State Department specifically addressed.” ABC’s Jonathan Karl [responded](http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/more-details-on-benghazi-talking-points-emerge) to Tapper’s report Tuesday by saying he quoted verbatim a source who had seen the original emails but was not permitted to make copies of them.
Click to expand...
Code: 
Karl said he contacted his source, who said that Rhodes’ reply “was after a long chain of email about State Dept concerns. So when WH emailer says, take into account all equities, he is talking about the State equities, since that is what the email chain was about.”
Click to expand...
To review: The so-called GOP version of the emails consisted of someone reading the talking points to ABC News. This does not dismiss the differences, but it does add some more context to the scenario in helping to explain why the texts vary in the first place. And it certainly doesn’t implicate any obvious Republican source.
Click to expand...
So that makes Garrett’s charge that it was “Republicans” who altered the emails much more curious. In fact, Garrett claims that there is a “Republican version” of the emails that was previously released and that this text is apparently inaccurate compared to the emails that were finally released by the White House this week. Throughout his report, Garrett even mentions this “Republican version.”
Click to expand...
He wrote:
Click to expand...
Code: 
On Friday, Republicans leaked what they said was a quote from Rhodes: “We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don’t want to undermine the FBI investigation.”
Click to expand...
Code: 
But it turns out that in the actual email, Rhodes did not mention the State Department.
Click to expand...
But that is a new charge. While it is entirely possible GOP members leaked the e-mails, there has been no admission of that publicly, and Garrett doesn’t cite sources.
Click to expand...
So where does this all leave us? First, there’s no denying that there are discrepancies. But is it true that it was Republicans who either altered them or were behind intentionally misleading the public? As the CBS report stands, that allegation has not been proven.
Click to expand...
Have any emails related to Benghazi been released from 12th and 13th of September 2012?
 
colmywaykurtz said:
I wouldn’t say it “served him right”—he certainly didn’t deserve to die—but if it ever becomes verified that he turned down the alleged offer of extra security from General Ham, it would suggest that the expertise of Stevens himself on the security situation in Benghazi at the time was respected. Most people who knew him and worked with him had an opinion of him consistent with that—he was highly respected as an intelligent and perceptive diplomat.
Click to expand...
That’s a very big IF Colm. Clearly he expressed grave concerns about the security in Benghazi as well as knowledge of previous assaults and the failure of the Libyans to step up and do their job. Whether he turned down security, what was offered and under what circumstances is still in the air.

My reading on the subject is that Stevens truly wanted the best for the Libyan people and perhaps gave them more benefit of the doubt than was warrented. He may have turned down security that he felt was intrusive or offensive to the Libyans or was told by State that he should work within the system. Although there are theories about his involvement in gun running or supporting the Syrian rebels, I have also heard he was in Benghazi at the behest of Mrs. Clinton who wanted Libya to be an example of our “effective” foreign policy and thus inadvertently sent him into a deathtrap. We really don’t know and probably never will.

The questions remain on the reasons for the stand down orders and the fabricated stories after the attack. I hope we get to the truth.

Lisa
 
freebeacon.com/calls-for-benghazi-select-committee-mount
More than 26,000 members of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association (FLEOA) have come out in favor of creating a Watergate-style investigatory committee that would be tasked with determining the truth behind the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks in Benghazi, Libya.
Click to expand...
Barbara Boxer’s claim that GOP budgets hampered Benghazi security


Sharyl Attkisson Scoop: Deployment Of Counterterror Response Team To Benghazi ‘Was Ruled Out From The Start’
According to Attkisson’s report, a FEST team was ready to intervene in the Benghazi attack and was preparing to respond but were never given the approval to engage.
Click to expand...
Code: 
“With U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens reported missing shortly after the Benghazi attacks began, Washington officials were operating under a possible hostage scenario at the outset,” Attkisson’s report reads. “Yet deployment of the counterterrorism experts on the FEST was ruled out from the start.”
Click to expand...
Ruled out from the start by who?
 
freebeacon.com/calls-for-benghazi-select-committee-mount
More than 26,000 members of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association (FLEOA) have come out in favor of creating a Watergate-style investigatory committee that would be tasked with determining the truth behind the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks in Benghazi, Libya.
Click to expand...
Barbara Boxer’s claim that GOP budgets hampered Benghazi security


Sharyl Attkisson Scoop: Deployment Of Counterterror Response Team To Benghazi ‘Was Ruled Out From The Start’
According to Attkisson’s report, a FEST team was ready to intervene in the Benghazi attack and was preparing to respond but were never given the approval to engage.
Click to expand...
Code: 
“With U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens reported missing shortly after the Benghazi attacks began, Washington officials were operating under a possible hostage scenario at the outset,” Attkisson’s report reads. “Yet deployment of the counterterrorism experts on the FEST was ruled out from the start.”
Click to expand...
Ruled out from the start by who?
 
I think we will see a special prosecutor on Benghazi, it won’t go away, Carl Woodward and a lot of people are saying it’s like Watergate.
 
LisaA said:
The questions remain on the reasons for the stand down orders and the fabricated stories after the attack. I hope we get to the truth. Lisa
Click to expand...
“…Stevens’ deputy, Gregory Hicks, who might be expected to be aware of the ambassador’s exchange with military leaders, was not asked about the offer of additional assistance during his appearance before a House of Representatives committee last week…”

foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/05/16/fox_leaving_the_pentagon_mullen_pickering_get_a_little_snarky_with_issa_benghazi

I think this needs to answered, too.
 
colmywaykurtz said:
“…Stevens’ deputy, Gregory Hicks, who might be expected to be aware of the ambassador’s exchange with military leaders, was not asked about the offer of additional assistance during his appearance before a House of Representatives committee last week…”

foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/05/16/fox_leaving_the_pentagon_mullen_pickering_get_a_little_snarky_with_issa_benghazi

I think this needs to answered, too.
Click to expand...
You should read the statement carefully: “might have been expected to…” Speculation. It is possible Hicks didn’t know but what is true is that he wasn’t asked. If you think back to the hearing, the issue wasn’t what happened BEFORE the attack but what happened during and afterward. The focus was on the two issues; why was there no response and why was the video pushed and who pushed it vis a vis what was known about the attackers. There was very limited time and second guessing what occurred between Ambassador Stevens and State or Defense wasn’t relevant to that hearing.

Nice try though.
Lisa
 
40.png
BroomWagon:
WOW…when I first read your comment I thought it meant the call between Hicks and Clinton but NO IT WAS OBAMA “checking in” before going night night. The writer is Andrew McCarthy a terrorism expert. Here’s the pertinent portion:

That is not true . . . and the truth, as we’ve come to expect with Obama, is almost surely worse. There is good reason to believe that while Americans were still fighting for their lives in Benghazi, while no military efforts were being made to rescue them, and while those desperately trying to rescue them were being told to stand down, the president was busy shaping the “blame the video” narrative to which his administration clung in the aftermath.

***We have heard almost nothing about what Obama was doing that night. Back in February, though, CNS News did manage to pry one grudging disclosure out of White House mendacity mogul Jay Carney: “At about 10 p.m., the president called Secretary Clinton to get an update on the situation.”

Obviously, it is not a detail Carney was anxious to share. Indeed, it contradicted an earlier White House account that claimed the president had not spoken with Clinton or other top administration officials that night.

The earlier story better fit Obama’s modus operandi, which is to disappear in times of crisis. His brief legislative career was about voting “present” because he prefers to be absent when accountability knocks. The idea is to be the Obama of Evan Thomas lore: “standing above the country, above — above the world, he’s sort of God.” He reemerges only after the shooting stops and the smoke clears: gnosis personified, here to diagnose our failings. He is not a commander-in-chief for the battle but the armchair general of the post mortem.

In this instance, though, Carney’s hand was forced by then-secretary Clinton. Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in January, she recounted first learning at about 4 p.m. on September 11 that the State Department facility in Benghazi was under attack. That was very shortly after the siege started. Over the hours that followed, Clinton stated, “we were in continuous meetings and conversations, both within the department, with our team in Tripoli, with the interagency and internationally.” It was in the course of this “constant ongoing discussion and sets of meetings” that Clinton then recalled: “I spoke with President Obama later in the evening to, you know, bring him up to date, to hear his perspective***
 
LisaA said:
You should read the statement carefully: “might have been expected to…” Speculation. It is possible Hicks didn’t know but what is true is that he wasn’t asked. If you think back to the hearing, the issue wasn’t what happened BEFORE the attack but what happened during and afterward. The focus was on the two issues; why was there no response and why was the video pushed and who pushed it vis a vis what was known about the attackers. There was very limited time and second guessing what occurred between Ambassador Stevens and State or Defense wasn’t relevant to that hearing.

Nice try though.
Lisa
Click to expand...
And, as usual, it’s YOU who are going off half-cocked. My point was, why wasn’t he asked about it? Perhaps Hicks DID know, but wasn’t asked. It was the duty of the House committee (a committee that probably has a Republican chairman, that being the majority party) to ask him.
 
colmywaykurtz said:
And, as usual, it’s YOU who are going off half-cocked. My point was, why wasn’t he asked about it? Perhaps Hicks DID know, but wasn’t asked. It was the duty of the House committee (a committee that probably has a Republican chairman, that being the majority party) to ask him.
Click to expand...
There were Democrats on the committee, you know, fishing for any thread or talking point that could excuse the regime’s scandalous behavior and incompetence. Maybe you could e-mail them so they could ask former Clinton and Obama supporter Hicks your question. 👍 Rob
 
RACJ said:
There were Democrats on the committee, you know, fishing for any thread or talking point that could excuse the regime’s scandalous behavior and incompetence. Maybe you could e-mail them so they could ask former Clinton and Obama supporter Hicks your question. 👍 Rob
Click to expand...
You think Hicks will tell the truth if he’s not under oath? I have severe doubts about that…
 
RACJ said:
There were Democrats on the committee, you know, fishing for any thread or talking point that could excuse the regime’s scandalous behavior and incompetence. Maybe you could e-mail them so they could ask former Clinton and Obama supporter Hicks your question. 👍 Rob
Click to expand...
👍 Exactly. During the earlier hearing when Mrs Clinton was being “questioned” the Democrat portion was mostly taken up with slobbering pandering, extravagent compliments and one Dem who said his wife and daughter would kill him were he not to spend his five minutes drooling on Hillary’s shoes. The Democrats have had multiple opportunities to defend Hillary and Obama. That their story has been found wanting is not for lack of trying on their part.

Lisa
 
colmywaykurtz said:
And, as usual, it’s YOU who are going off half-cocked. My point was, why wasn’t he asked about it? Perhaps Hicks DID know, but wasn’t asked. It was the duty of the House committee (a committee that probably has a Republican chairman, that being the majority party) to ask him.
Click to expand...
You are very good at advancing YOUR OPINIONS as some sort of proclamation from on high. Why would they have a ‘duty’ to ask this question when it was not the issue being discussed? Why would second hand knowledge of what Stevens might or might not have seen been credible? It would have been mere speculation in Hicks’ part.

He and the other witnesses were contacted to provide additional information, particularly the moment by moment testimony by Mr Hicks. They were not there to second guess the discussion between State and Defense and Stevens. Yes this is an important issue but Stevens is not “on trial,” here, he’s dead.

Lisa
 
colmywaykurtz said:
And, as usual, it’s YOU who are going off half-cocked. My point was, why wasn’t he asked about it? Perhaps Hicks DID know, but wasn’t asked. It was the duty of the House committee (a committee that probably has a Republican chairman, that being the majority party) to ask him.
Click to expand...
There are plenty of Democrats on the committee, and they are allowed to ask questions, as well. oversight.house.gov/committee-members/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top