White House Defends New Benghazi Email

[gnjsdad]

Confused? Try an organized campaign to mislead the American people into thinking the attack was the result of a popular reaction to a video some guy made. Try deceptive and duplicitous.

To what end? What is the administration attemptimg to cover up? Obama’s secret ties to al Queda-related groups? This is something I honestly don’t understand.

ishii:

They are trying to cover up the lies they told in the effort to protect Obama’s re-election chances.

The election did not hinge on Benghazi.

ishii:

And which Republican administrations created a false narrative to explain an attack on an embassy under their watch?

Ishii

Do you really want to bring to this thread discussion of Republican administrations, foreign affairs, and false narratives?

On Benghazi, there really is no there there, nothing of significance beyond that which we already know.

 

[TaurusRex]

realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/05/01/fmr_security_council_spokesman_tommy_veitor_on_benghazi_dude_this_was_two_years_ago.html

:bigyikes:

Folks, it’s interesting how the Obama administration opposition uses words like: “hide, cover-up and sweep under the carpet” because this thread seems like an escape hole to dodge the truth of the facts I’ve presented in my thread on the topic while being able to continue slinging mud at the Obama administration.

Well the only contribution I’m going to make here is the full Tommy Vietor video
And a couple of corrections like in the video above for some reason Vietor’s voice is silenced as he’s trying to explain that the Obama administration was quite worried about the demonstrations over the Muslim video in Pakistan where Bin Laden was killed

And in my link of the Vietor interview the commentator claims the terrorist attack on Benghazi was still in progress at 10:00 pm ET, which would actually be 4:00 am Benghazi time with Hilary Clinton having discovered at ~2:00 am Benghazi time that Stevens was already dead
And that basically the attack was over at ~6:00 pm ET with a 6 man security team unable to find Stevens and making arrangements to leave for town to find him.

Here’s the long version of the Tommy Vietor video:

video.foxnews.com/v/3529042407001/tommy-vietor-ben-rhodes-e-mail-tells-us-nothing-new/#sp=show-clips

Here’s the time-line sequence of events of the Benghazi terrorist attack:

cbsnews.com/news/benghazi-timeline-how-the-attack-unfolded/

10:05 p.m. (4:05 p.m. ET): An alert from the State Department Operations Center is issued to a number of government and intelligence agencies, including the White House Situation Room, the office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the FBI. “US Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack” – “approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well. Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four COM (Chief of Mission/embassy) personnel are in the compound safe haven.”

10:25 p.m. (4:25 p.m. ET): A six-member CIA team arrives from the annex with 40 to 60 members of 17th of February Brigade. The team removes Smith’s body.
Around 10:30 p.m. (4:30 p.m. ET): Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and his top military adviser learn of the incident.
10:54 p.m. (4:54 p.m. ET): An alert from the State Dept. Operations Center: “the firing… in Benghazi has stopped. A response team is on site attempting to locate COM personnel.”

11 p.m. (5 p.m. ET): Just ahead of the weekly meeting with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Chairman of Joint Chiefs Martin Dempsey, White House National Security Advisor Tom Donilon tells President Obama of the attack and the fire at the main villa. The president and those officials discuss possible responses to the situation.
At the compound, the 17th of February Brigade says they can’t hold the perimeter and withdraws.
DS agents make final search for Stevens and leave with the CIA team in an armored vehicle heading for the annex, taking fire along the way.
/videos/inside-room-of-murdered-us-ambassador-chris-stevens Play Video
Inside room of murdered U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens

Of note, when CBS News’ Elizabeth Palmer visited the compound in one of several trips to Libya, she found little evidence of an extensive firefight at the compound’s walls and main gate, likely indicating the fiercest fighting occurred away from the compound.
Midnight (6 p.m. ET) Agents arrive at the annex, which receives sporadic small-arms fire and RPG rounds over a roughly 90-minute period. The security team returns fire and the attackers disperse.
Over the next two hours, Sec. Panetta holds a series of meetings and issues several orders: Two Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team (FAST) platoons stationed in Rota, Spain prepare to deploy - one to Benghazi and the other to the Embassy in Tripoli; A special operations team in Europe is ordered to move to Sigonella, Sicily - less than one hour’s flight away from Benghazi; An additional special operations team based in the U.S. is ordered to deploy to Sigonella.

12:07 a.m. (6:07 p.m. ET): An alert from the State Dept. Operations Center states that the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli reports the Islamic military group “Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibilty for Benghazi Attack”… “on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli.”
Around 12:30 a.m. (6:30 p.m. ET): A six-man security team, including two Defense Dept. personnel, leave Embassy Tripoli for Benghazi.

1:30 a.m. (7:30 p.m. ET): The U.S. security team from Embassy Tripoli lands in Benghazi and learn that the ambassador is missing. They try to arrange for transportation into town, with the goal of locating Stevens.

4:07 a.m. (10:07 p.m. ET): Secretary Clinton issues a statement acknowledging the death of one State Dept. officer.

In another link in my thread on this topic it’s stated that Hilary called at 2:00 am Benghazi time 8:00 pm ET to hear that Stevens was dead.

PS:
This Vietor video is concerned with the commentator trying to disprove the idea that the Muslim video was the cause of the Benghazi terrorist attack with the commentator insisting that there was no protest or demonstration;
Whereas Vietor is insisting as I’ve tried to state that there didn’t have to be a protest for the video to still be the cause of the terrorist effect.

rex

 

[MJE]

T Rex, do you agree w/ Harry Reid that the Koch brothers are part of this ‘smear campaign’ against Pres. Obama/Sec of State Clinton et al?

 

[ishii]

 To what end? What is the administration attemptimg to cover up? Obama's secret ties to al Queda-related groups? This is something I honestly don't understand.

Wow. Do you not understand that the cover up was to blame the attack on a video rather than have the attack contradict Obama’s claim that its Mideast policy against terrorism was succeeding, that al Qaeda was being vanquished.

The election did not hinge on Benghazi.

No it didn’t - not entirely. But if the truth had come out, his foreign policy would have been open to much more criticism. If memory serves, foreign policy was held up as one of the big “successes” of the Obama administration. Benghazi undermined that narrative.

Do you really want to bring to this thread discussion of Republican administrations, foreign affairs, and false narratives?

Tu quoque. “others lied, so its okay if I lie.” Benghazi is different in that it is such a clear case of fabricating a false narrative for political purposes.

On Benghazi, there really is no there there, nothing of significance beyond that which we already know.

Yes, that is what Obama would like you to believe. Strange that some are so easily convinced in the face of the facts.

 

[ishii]

To what end? What is the administration attemptimg to cover up? Obama’s secret ties to al Queda-related groups? This is something I honestly don’t understand.
.

Here is then Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes answering your question in his email to those preparing Ambassador Rice for her TV interviews:

“To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.”

There you go, gnjsdad. Hopefully you’ll believe a member of Obama’s own administration.

Ishii

 

[TaurusRex]

Here is then Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes answering your question in his email to those preparing Ambassador Rice for her TV interviews:

“To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.”

There you go, gnjsdad. Hopefully you’ll believe a member of Obama’s own administration.

Ishii

Again Rhodes’ email is referring generally to the Muslim world protests and demonstrations caused by the Muslim video, not to Benghazi;
And he is explaining that the problems caused by the video aren’t due to a failure of administration policy.
The only thing wrong with that statement is your misinterpretation of it as well as the deliberate misinterpretations of it of everyone else opposed to the Obama administration.

PS:
Again, Rice did also connect the Benghazi terrorist attack to the Muslim video, but her connection came from the fact that other sources like the Ansar al Sharia leader admitted that the attack was a result of Muslim anger over the video;
And there’s also mention by Vietor that the CIA and the state department did also believe that although there was no protest, the Benghazi attack was still initiated by anger over the Muslim video.

rex.

 

[TaurusRex]

T Rex, do you agree w/ Harry Reid that the Koch brothers are part of this ‘smear campaign’ against Pres. Obama/Sec of State Clinton et al?

The Koch brothers to my knowledge are into military arms manufacturing and Obama has done his best to end two military arms expensive wars;
So I doubt if the Koch brothers are happy with Obama is all I’ll say about that here;

Except I’ll also say here that your question along with my post #72 and Watergate might make for an interesting other thread if they get into the news.

rex

 

[ishii]

Again Rhodes’ email is referring generally to the Muslim world protests and demonstrations caused by the Muslim video, not to Benghazi;
And he is explaining that the problems caused by the video aren’t due to a failure of administration policy.
The only thing wrong with that statement is your misinterpretation of it as well as the deliberate misinterpretations of it of everyone else opposed to the Obama administration.

PS:
Again, Rice did also connect the Benghazi terrorist attack to the Muslim video, but her connection came from the fact that other sources like the Ansar al Sharia leader admitted that the attack was a result of Muslim anger over the video;
And there’s also mention by Vietor that the CIA and the state department did also believe that although there was no protest, the Benghazi attack was still initiated by anger over the Muslim video.

rex.

So why did the Obama state dept, when asked for all documents pertaining to this, not turn over the Ben Rhodes talking points email, and only do so when forced by a court order? These talking points were specifically created by Obama’s team to perpetuate the false notion that the attacks on Benghazi were due to a protest over a video. Moreover, these false talking points which were created by the Obama team and given to Ambassador Rice - were not based on any intelligence coming from the CIA.

Ishii

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

These talking points were specifically created by Obama’s team to perpetuate the false notion that the attacks on Benghazi were due to a protest over a video. Moreover, these false talking points which were created by the Obama team and given to Ambassador Rice - were not based on any intelligence coming from the CIA.

That isn’t true. Read the documents and the testimony.

 

[ishii]

That isn’t true. Read the documents and the testimony.

Not true? Which part is not true?

 

[saintjohnxxiii]

Not true? Which part is not true?

The only part that isn’t true is the BS internet video as the reason for the assassination of Ambassador Stevens and the 3 other brave men.

It is established fact that the Africom Commander advised Sec. Panetta that it was a planned terrorist attack on the day and Panetta advised the President. Of course we didn’t know this at the time when Susan Rice attributed the planned terrorist attack to a spontaneous protest.

They did this because Pres. Obama kept reiterating that al-Qaeda was on the run.

Its not that hard to understand or believe.

 

[TaurusRex]

The only part that isn’t true is the BS internet video as the reason for the assassination of Ambassador Stevens and the 3 other brave men.

It is established fact that the Africom Commander advised Sec. Panetta that it was a planned terrorist attack on the day and Panetta advised the President. Of course we didn’t know this at the time when Susan Rice attributed the planned terrorist attack to a spontaneous protest.

They did this because Pres. Obama kept reiterating that al-Qaeda was on the run.

Its not that hard to understand or believe.

Last time I directed someone to this link that follows, I didn’t realize it wasn’t working in my post #96 although the original in my post #63 still works;
But however, this link in this post should work okay:

PS:
The fact that Rice also attributed the Benghazi terrorist attack to the Muslim video had nothing to do with the email …
Rice apparently got her signals about Benghazi from the CIA.
There’s a shade of difference in the explanation which I’m sure the media and our politically conservative members here I’m sure will neglect and I’m sure won’t lose any sleep over neglecting it.

Finally again, it’s been stated here and elsewhere that the Benghazi terrorist attack, (that is, TERRORIST ATTACK, NOT PROTEST)
WAS
triggered by the Muslim video, but the truth of that is also being ignored;
And also again, please read the entire link in my post #63:

hardnoxandfriends.com/2014/01/24/gregory-hicks-benghazi-and-the-smearing-of-chris-stevens/

Please don’t misunderstand, but according to that link there seems to have been some blame directed at Chris Stevens for lack of security because of being too concerned about getting diplomatic immunity and again, I’m not sure, but it seems that’s where Panetta went over his head;
Except it also seems according to that link that State Department undersecretary Patrick Kennedy made the final call on security at Benghazi.
Again, please read that link in its entirety and please correct me where/if I may have unintentionally misinterpreted it.

rex

Anyway, again and I don’t intend to repeat this again, the circumstance with General Carter Ham is explained in the last link above …
Chris Stevens had refused his offer for support on two previous occasions because of the “diplomatic immunity” problem causing attacks without it;
And also again, Panetta went over his head., but State undersecretary Patrick Kennedy had the last say apparently and declined Chris’ request for additional support very close to the final date of the attack.

Please read the link because many of the answers are there as to why this and why that …
it did seem to me that the military couldn’t get clearance for lack of “diplomatic immunity”.

rex

 

[estesbob]

To what end? What is the administration attemptimg to cover up? Obama’s secret ties to al Queda-related groups? This is something I honestly don’t understand.

The election did not hinge on Benghazi.

Do you really want to bring to this thread discussion of Republican administrations, foreign affairs, and false narratives?

On Benghazi, there really is no there there, nothing of significance beyond that which we already know.

Actually this lie coupled with the use of the IRS to suppress dissenting voices was a major factor in Obamas victory

 

[TaurusRex]

So why did the Obama state dept, when asked for all documents pertaining to this, not turn over the Ben Rhodes talking points email, and only do so when forced by a court order? These talking points were specifically created by Obama’s team to perpetuate the false notion that the attacks on Benghazi were due to a protest over a video. Moreover, these false talking points which were created by the Obama team and given to Ambassador Rice - were not based on any intelligence coming from the CIA.

Ishii

slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2012/10/the_benghazi_attack_and_the_anti_muslim_video_how_the_gop_misread_intelligence.html

In Benghazi, witnesses saw attackers and onlookers. The problem was figuring out the relationship between them. The CIA’s initial assessments suggested a hybrid scenario: a demonstration “spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo" that “evolved into a direct assault” by extremists.
If you look back at the administration’s early statements, you’ll see signs of this uncertainty. Spokesmen talked about the video in the context of the Muslim riots generally.

On Sept. 14, ABC’s Jake Tapper asked White House Press Secretary Jay Carney whether this was true in Benghazi. “We certainly don’t know,” said Carney. In her now-infamous tour of the Sunday talk shows on Sept. 16, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice parroted CIA assessments, asserting that a protest at the consulate “seems to have been hijacked” by “extremists who came with heavier weapons.” On Sept. 18, Carney repeated that the video had “caused the unrest in Cairo” and “precipitated some of the unrest in Benghazi.” But he added, “What other factors were involved is a matter of investigation." On Sept. 20, Obama said protests over the video “were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests."

rex

 

[SuperLuigi]

I don’t know whether or not to laugh or be angry that some of the democrats and liberals in the USA are predictably circling the wagons and are in damage control mode over this cover-up and scandal because it ultimately doesn’t help them in elections.

As for Watergate, no one died in that.

 

[SMGS127]

I don’t know whether or not to laugh or be angry that some of the democrats and liberals in the USA are predictably circling the wagons and are in damage control mode over this cover-up and scandal because it ultimately doesn’t help them in elections.

As for Watergate, no one died in that.

Are you kidding me? Democrats are excited about the new Benghazi commission. Can you imagine the attack ads from Democrats showing like 16 Republicans and no Democrats on a panel wasting time on a non-scandal while Senate Democrats are trying to push Republicans to actually work?

Benghazi is a huge political winner for Democrats, in that it shows Republicans will take every little non-scandal, no matter how petty, and waste time on it until they’re blue in the face. I just read a comment today from a Democratic voter saying “I wonder when the time wasted on Benghazi will equal the time wasted on ObamaCare repeal votes.” If only they spent this much time upset over Aurora and Newton, where far more people were killed in much more easily-preventable massacres .

Conservative Republicans have such an insular circle, media and otherwise, though, that it’s virtually impossible to show them that what works for rabid primary voters doesn’t actually fly with the rest of the country. They made this mistake once by impeaching Clinton, and now they’re making it again. This is part of the reason gerrymandering is so terrible for the country. Republicans need to have to listen to independents and swing voters. Otherwise, there will never be another Republican President again.

For pro-life purposes, I want another [pro-life] Republican President. And I’m sorry, but it won’t happen as long as primary voters, elected Republicans, and their media supporters don’t know how to be anything but a snarling attack dog on hyperdrive without an off switch, desperately searching for something to bite.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Are you kidding me?

Nope. And confrontational attitudes do not serve well.

Democrats are excited about the new Benghazi commission.

I’m can imagine that is what some of them will say in public.

Can you imagine the attack ads from Democrats showing like 16 Republicans and no Democrats on a panel wasting time on a non-scandal while Senate Democrats are trying to push Republicans to actually work?

There is compelling evidence of a cover-up that goes into the White House. If the democrats want some kind of boomerang effect, then I guess the mainstream media should have done it’s job back in September instead of covering for the democrats.

The fact is the buck stops with Benghazi as far as their check in mail from the federal government is concerned, perhaps even for many of those self-described “patriots” and “conservatives”.

Benghazi is a huge political winner for Democrats, in that it shows Republicans will take every little non-scandal, no matter how petty, and waste time on it until they’re blue in the face.

I just read a comment today from a Democratic voter saying “I wonder when the time wasted on Benghazi will equal the time wasted on ObamaCare repeal votes.”

I’m sure you did.

If only they spent this much time upset over Aurora and Newton, where far more people were killed in much more easily-preventable massacres .

Gun-free zones caused Aurora and Newton. Frankly, those are local issues and not every problem can be solved by the federal government.

Besides, I have my doubts that many of these democrats really “care” that much anyways and were interested in distracting the country from the dismal ObamaCare.

Conservative Republicans have such an insular circle, media and otherwise, though, that it’s virtually impossible to show them that what works for rabid primary voters doesn’t actually fly with the rest of the country.

There needs to be a better strategy. The Benghazi issue alone will not sink Clinton and will not hurt Obama that much.

]They made this mistake once by impeaching Clinton, and now they’re making it again.

Republicans (TEA PARTY included) do often check their ingenuity and intelligence at the door when it comes to elections, but they need to go after this Benghazi nonsense and not worry about Obama’s skin color or Clinton’s gender.

This is part of the reason gerrymandering is so terrible for the country.

I’d say a largely selfish American electorate is even worse.

Republicans need to have to listen to independents and swing voters. Otherwise, there will never be another Republican President again.

Republicans need to listen to their base, a lot of which didn’t show up in 2012, and stand on principle and force the country to make a choice: get up and be prosperous and fall into the darkness of history.

It’s that simple.

For pro-life purposes, I want another [pro-life] Republican President.

From the previous comments, I would not have guessed.

And I’m sorry, but it won’t happen as long as primary voters, elected Republicans, and their media supporters don’t know how to be anything but a snarling attack dog on hyperdrive without an off switch, desperately searching for something to bite.

There’s some truth to that.

 

[SMGS127]

Republicans (TEA PARTY included) do often check their ingenuity and intelligence at the door when it comes to elections, but they need to go after this Benghazi nonsense and not worry about Obama’s skin color or Clinton’s gender.

Do they really need to? Here’s Nancy Pelosi today:

"I consider the source and I consider them to be stuck in a poverty of ideas. They have none, and that’s where they had to go.”

“I think people are tired of that, they want to know ‘what are your ideas about job creation?’ They have none,”

“What are your ideas about taking us forward on protecting the environment? … Investing in the future? Passing an immigration bill … They have no plans. They don’t govern. They have no initiatives for the future, so they make personal attacks. “

“We’re about what we have to offer to the American people. And nothing demonstrates the distinction more, and that’s what they want to try to divert attention from, than the two budgets that are coming forth."

“These two budgets are very different from each other and they don’t want the public to see that contrast. So what do they talk about? Benghazi, Pelosi — it’s all diversionary. It’s all totally unimportant and I couldn’t care less personally about them."

“What I will say is, again, diversion, subterfuge: Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi. Why aren’t we talking about something else?”

“Whatever was in that — what I know of what I’ve read in the press about those emails was very consistent with what was put out there before. I don’t think there’s anything new there.”

washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/4/pelosi-says-she-couldnt-care-less-about-benghazi-c/

So who do you think will earn more votes? The Party going “let’s talk about the budget, let’s talk about jobs,” or the Party going “Benghazi!!!1111!!1!”? Come on. Republicans used to be moderate, but they’ve gone way off the deep end recently. We need to go back to Republicans who are socially conservative but willing to compromise on economics and willing to cut military funding and raise taxes. Not to mention Republicans who don’t lose their mind whenever they think they can pounce.

 

[estesbob]

Do they really need to? Here’s Nancy Pelosi today:

washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/4/pelosi-says-she-couldnt-care-less-about-benghazi-c/

So who do you think will earn more votes? The Party going “let’s talk about the budget, let’s talk about jobs,” or the Party going “Benghazi!!!1111!!1!”? Come on. Republicans used to be moderate, but they’ve gone way off the deep end recently. We need to go back to Republicans who are socially conservative but willing to compromise on economics and willing to cut military funding and raise taxes. Not to mention Republicans who don’t lose their mind whenever they think they can pounce.

I would say the Party who imposed Obamacare on the nation is the one in trouble

 

[SuperLuigi]

I would say the Party who imposed Obamacare on the nation is the one in trouble