GOP Sources Altered Benghazi E-Mails to Suggest Coverup

http://www.nationofchange.org/gop-sources-altered-benghazi-emails-suggest-cover-reporter-confirms-1368887245

How the F is there a cover up when from the git go the President from the Rose Garden tells us we have been attacked by terrorists.........I mean I listened live......I had no confusion....I heard Rice and thought.....this is some additional factors....but we were attacked by terrorists........just how dumb do you have to be to believe that there was a cover up.....or that it made a hill of beans in the election......it was pure desperation then.....it is pure desperation now......really sad that the intelligent party has resorted to smoke and mirrors.....but it has been taken over by special interests and stupid....so it is what it is........

I just did a forum search... there was no claim that obama had called it an act of terror until after the debate 10/17/12.

Certainly not by you seaoat... you didn't claim you had that amazing insight until well after that.

https://pensacoladiscussion.forumotion.com/t3234-repuke-congressman-furious-that-obama-waited-four-minutes-before-calling-benghazi-attack-act-of-terror?highlight=act+of+terror

Oh.....read my lips......


and there are three main suspects. Al Queda who wants the West to overreact and spend trillions and therefore become weaker, the military industrial complex who will slowly be chocked of profits as we wind down our military to a smaller and changing paradigm, and the state of Israel which needs us to fight a war with Iran while they stand on the sidelines because the standard rationalization is that if they join in we will lose our Arab alliance.

Not one word of difference today.....and President confirmed completely that my thoughts were correct.

The President was crystal clear, and my comments were crystal clear....we were attacked by terrorists.......which to date......we certainly do not know which of the three committed the terror acts.

Ok Nostradamus... lol.

Ok Nostradamus... lol.

He picked the Lakers.......I liked the Bulls.........and Boards likes the Heat.......It was a terrorist attack.....were you confused really?

" We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful internet video that we had nothing to do with." - Clinton, Andrews AFB, Sept. 14

What we've seen over the last week, week and a half, is something that actually we've seen in the past, where there is an offensive video or cartoon directed at the prophet Muhammad. And this is obviously something that then is used as an excuse by some to carry out inexcusable violent acts directed at Westerners or Americans. - Obama, Univision, Sept. 20

"There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There is no video that justifies an attack on an Embassy." - Obama, UN speech, Sept. 25

No... I wasn't confused.

ah, now lets see if you will use some of that grey matter........why are you convinced that the protests are not part of the same attack. Why do you assume that it is either or.........I have given you three prime terrorist suspects, and are you telling me that they cannot coordinate mass demonstrations to provide cover...........really.....you think analysis is one dimensional.......sorry, those demonstrations were not spontaneous.....they were in substantial part a process which certainly aided the attack in Libya, and in part why the CIA and State were not so quick then,nor now to dismiss the dots being connected......who would benefit from the same......my three candidates remain strong, and certainly you never learned how to take a multiple choice test....when in doubt......pick D....all of the above.

It was 9/11... in a country we had just bombed... whose insurgents we had armed to assist overthrow the govt.

There's three reasons not to have cut security... but we can throw a youtube video in there too... lol.

How about the previous attacks on the consulate... the attacks on the red cross... the assassination attempt on the brit ambassador... The evacuation of the red cross and the brits. The communications discribing a deteriorating scenario and requests for security... but we cut security. Oh... and a youtube video.

Read Nuland's emails... they didn't want scrutiny of their naive or incompetent policies prior to the election...

I'd speculate that the video played as much a part as the dems doing a touchdown dance at the dnc over killing bin laden... nil.

Have you ever wondered where obama was? We know there was live feed from a drone. Would you have been watching?

Would you have been watching?

Let's see......President Obama needs to be micro managing the Cincinnati office.......He needs to be taking probable cause to a judge to issue the AP warrants..........he needs to be watching as an afghan ambushes one of our patrols........and he needed to know what four CIA folks were doing in Libya.........Now my question is do you still read super hero comics and from those comics do you create your world view of what a President should do........

It makes as much sense as Steve Jobs going into an apple store and sorting the hard drives, or the Koch brothers changing the drill bit on a rig in OK......or Steven Speilberg painting the set for his next movie.......You really have to buy into some dumb asz view of the world to blame the President........almost childish naive notions which would be quaint if coming from children.....but you are an adult.......grow up!

You're prolly right... he had a busy schedule campaigning on the west coast the next day... needed a good nights rest.

«yawn»

he had a busy schedule campaigning on the west coast the next day.

So in the absence of the President our government is helpless......for somebody who believes we do not need government, you impute this paternalistic need for it even to operate to be dependent on the President making every decision from what type of Toilet paper will be used in Fort Hood to what the coast guard is using for fuel supplements.......put the comic books down......put the comic books down........put the comic books down........we will need to get the children into a 12 step program........but until then Fox News can provide you with a live feed of children programing.

You missed your calling... the lack of a gag reflex could have taken you far in DC... or in back alleys.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B001O5EYFM

2seaoat wrote:ah, now lets see if you will use some of that grey matter........why are you convinced that the protests are not part of the same attack. Why do you assume that it is either or.........I have given you three prime terrorist suspects, and are you telling me that they cannot coordinate mass demonstrations to provide cover...........really.....you think analysis is one dimensional.......sorry, those demonstrations were not spontaneous.....they were in substantial part a process which certainly aided the attack in Libya, and in part why the CIA and State were not so quick then,nor now to dismiss the dots being connected......who would benefit from the same......my three candidates remain strong, and certainly you never learned how to take a multiple choice test....when in doubt......pick D....all of the above.

There is actually one more choice...remember it was just prior to the election.

There is actually one more choice...remember it was just prior to the election.

60% al queda......20% industrial military complex......20% Israel........however, you begin to wonder why they are not telling us who was responsible for this attack.......the real scandal in Bhengazi is the who did it part......and why the silence on who did it.......I think there is a lot more to this story that the adults need to know......but for now, we can be entertained by the children, and the children programing which attempts to pass as serious adult conversation.

I sincerely wish that I could be as gullible as you two.

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-news-sunday-chris-wallace/2013/05/19/hell-week-white-house-reaction-dan-pfeiffer-and-rep-paul-ryan

WALLACE: OK.

Let's turn to Benghazi. And I want to ask you about one lingering question, which is the president's actions on 9/11, the night of the attack, because we don't know very much about that. We do know that in the afternoon he had already scheduled meeting with Defense Secretary Panetta as well as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Martin Dempsey when he heard about this while they were in a meeting on an unrelated subject. He said that wanted them to deploy forces as soon as possible.

The next time that he shows up, is as Hillary Clinton says that she spoke to him at around 10:00 that night after the attack at the consulate, not as it turned out at the annex, but the attack at the consulate was -- had ended. Question, what did the president do the rest of that night to pursue Benghazi?

PFEIFFER: Well, look, the president was kept up to date on this as it was happening throughout the entire night, from the moment it started until the very end. And because this is a critically -- this was a horrible tragedy. These are people that he sent abroad whose lives are in risk, people who work for him. And I recognize that there's a series of conspiracy theories the Republicans have been spinning about this since the night it happened, but there's been an independent review of this, congress has held hearings, we provided 250,000 pages of -- 250,000 pages of documents up there. There's been 11 hearings, 20 staff briefings. And everyone has found the same thing, this is a tragedy.

And so the question here is not what happened that night. The question is what are we going to do to move forward ensuring that this doesn't happen again. That's why Congress should act on what the president called for earlier this week, to pass legislation to allow us to actually implement all the recommendations of the independent accountability review board so we can protect our diplomats around the world, because when we send our diplomats off into far-flung places, there's an inherent level of risk. We should do what we can to mitigate that risk.

WALLACE: But with due respect, you didn't answer my question. What did the president do that night?

PFEIFFER: He was kept -- he was in constant touch that night with his national security team and kept up to date with the events as they were happening.

WALLACE: When you say his national security team, he didn't talk to the secretary of state, except for the one time when the first attack was over. He didn't talk to the secretary of defense. He didn't talk to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Who was he talking to?

PFEIFFER: He was talking to his national security staff, his National Security Council, the people who keep him up to date about briefings as they happen.

WALLACE: Was he in the Situation Room?

PFEIFFER: He was kept up to date throughout the day.

WALLACE: Do you not know whether he was in the Situation Room?

PFEIFFER: I don't remember what room the president was in on that night. And that's a largely irrelevant fact.

WALLACE: Well --

PFEIFFER: The point is -- the question is -- the premise of your question is that somehow there was something that could have been done differently, OK, that would have changed the outcome here. The accountability review board has looked at this. People have looked at it. It's a horrible tragedy, what happened, and we have to make sure it doesn't happen again.

WALLACE: Here's the point, though. The ambassador goes missing, ends up the first ambassador in more than 30 years is killed. Four Americans, including the ambassador, are killed. Dozens of Americans are in jeopardy. The president at 4:00 in the afternoon says to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs to deploy forces. No forces are deployed. Where is he while all this is going on?

PFEIFFER: This has been testified to by the --

WALLACE: Well, no. No one knows where he was, or how he was involved, or who told him there were no forces --

PFEIFFER: The suggestion of your question is that somehow the president --

(CROSSTALK)

WALLACE: I just want to know what the answer is.

PFEIFFER: The assertions from Republicans here that somehow the president allowed this to happen or didn't take action is offensive. It is absolutely an offensive premise. And there's no evidence to support it.

WALLACE: We are just -- I'm simply asking a question. Where was he? What did he do? How did he respond? Who told him that you can't deploy forces, and what was his response to that? PFEIFFER: As I said, the president was in the White House that day, he was kept up to date by his national security team. He spoke to the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs earlier. The secretary of state later. And as events unfolded, he was kept up to date.

WALLACE: Let me -- here's one of the reasons that people have questions about this. This week, the White House released 100 pages of emails, all the communications between the various agencies in the two days before Susan Rice came on this and four other Sunday talk shows.

I just want to put up a couple of the emails from Friday, Friday the 14th, two days before Susan Rice made her television appearance. Friday, 6:48 p.m., Tommy Vietor in the White House. "FYI, Brennan," that's the president's counter-terrorism adviser, "we'll have edits. I'll waiting for those." 7:39 p.m., Victoria Nuland at State, "talking points could be abused by members of Congress to beat the State Department for not paying attention to agency warnings. So why do we want to feed that either?" But here's what the president's spokesman, Jay Carney, said about all of this last November. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAY CARNEY, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: The White House and State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two -- these two institutions were changing the word "consulate" to "diplomatic facility," because consulate was inaccurate.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: That's the problem. He says there was a single adjustment by the White House and State. Any fair reading of the emails, just the two I read, that's totally misleading.

PFEIFFER: I think we should look -- now that the emails are out, and everyone can look at them -- and I think one of the problems that there's so much controversy here is because one of the emails was doctored by a Republican source and given to the media to falsely smear the president.

WALLACE: I'm not talking about that.

PFEIFFER: No, I know, but that's an important point here, because now the emails are out--

WALLACE: I am basing mine -- would you agree that the ones I read--

(CROSSTALK)

PFEIFFER: Absolutely -- I am not -- absolutely. The point here is that the emails you're referring to were provided to Congress two months ago. Congress looked at them, didn't say a word, did not bat an eye. They were provided in the context of John Brennan's confirmation as CIA director. After seeing the emails, they approved John Brennan with a large bipartisan vote. So this has been looked at. There is no issue here.

What's clear from these emails is three things that debunk all of the Republican conspiracy theories here. First the idea that there was a protest is in every version of the talking points put forward, edited and written by the CIA.

WALLACE: No.

PFEIFFER: Yes.

WALLACE: They say the attack -- I just read it this morning. They say the attack was inspired by the protests in Cairo. There is no mention of a protest against the video in any of the talking points.

PFEIFFER: Yes, the idea that -- the point is that the -- the argument here has been, from Republicans, is that it was --had nothing to do with the protest, and that was somehow fabricated by the administration for political reasons. That is clearly not true.

WALLACE: (inaudible) about the video in the talking points?

PFEIFFER: There was a mention that the inspiration is that --

WALLACE: What happened in Cairo.

PFEIFFER: Correct.

WALLACE: But no demonstration against the video in Benghazi?

PFEIFFER: The fact that that happened is what a lot of people (inaudible). The second thing in the talking points is that the references to terror and al Qaeda were removed, not by the White House, not by the State Department, but by the CIA. And this is why--

WALLACE: But the State Department was demanding that it be removed.

PFEIFFER: But this is the third thing that's clear from this, is that the motivation here was to try to get it right as best we could in a very challenging situation with changing information. And two, to protect the integrity of the investigation. That is why (inaudible). In the actual email that was released, not the doctored version, the actual email, the White House involvement here is to say we have to protect the equities, particularly the investigation, because that's what's important, because we want to bring these people to justice.

WALLACE: All right.

PFEIFFER: And I do think, I will say, as it relates to the doctored email, the question for the Republicans is, are they going to be, is Congressman Issa and others are going to be as interested in tracking down the Republican who doctored this email and released it as they are in investigating all these other things? I certainly hope they would be.

WALLACE: We're going to agree to disagree on the emails. I have one last question for you, because we're running out of time.

Some critics say, that when you take a look at all of these scandals, the confluence of these scandals, AP, Benghazi, IRS, that it raises questions about the president's activist government solutions to problems, and they also note how often the president says that he found out about any problems when all the rest of us did. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: I first learned about it from the same news reports that I think most people learned about this.

CARNEY: He found out about the news reports yesterday on the road.

Everyone knows, the president did not know about this tactic until he heard about it through the media.

OBAMA: It was something we found out about along with all of you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: How can people have confidence in the president's programs when so often -- and this isn't just coming from Republican conspiracy -- you're seeing this in the mainstream media. So often he seems to be a bystander to the problems in his own administration.

PFEIFFER: I think that's an absurd proposition. If you -- let's theme (ph) out what we're talking about. We're talking about the IRS, and the Department of Justice investigation. What would be a real problem is --

WALLACE: And Fast and Furious.

PFEIFFER: Which is also a Department of Justice investigation. What would be a real problem would be if he was involved in those things. Like I said, the cardinal rule is you don't get involved in independent investigations, and you don't give the appearance of doing so. So that's the right thing.

The question here is, now that -- when problems come forward, how does the president react? In the case of the IRS, within a few hours of the actual report being released, he'd met with the Treasury secretary, with the Treasury Department, addressed the nation, and taken action, including the -- asking for the resignation of the acting IRS commissioner. So it's how you respond to those problems. And that's what the president did.

One thing is for sure, CNN and Fox News are covering the issues totally differently this Sunday. I watched CNN this morning and they spent at least an hour talking about how Obama was handling the issues very well and that he has a 53% approval rating and Americans trust him and like him. They said he's doing so well and most Americans don't think he knew of any wrongdoings. Then I switched the channel to Fox News and it's all doom and gloom about the Obama admin, and about how he's struggling to cope with all the scandals.

You would not think you're watching news about the same president.

I don't know about how MSNBC is covering the news today.
But CNN is having a love fest for Obama and FOX News is having a hate fest for Obama.

Pfeiffer spoke for the administration... ignore wallace if you choose... just read pfeiffer's words.

Do you ignore that just because of the channel it's on? I didn't use fox for ideologic reasons... never have.

Now Fox is showing Wallace interviewing Dan Pfeiffer, an Obama senior adviser. Wallace keeps asking him where Obama was during Benghazi. Pfeiffer won't answer but keeps saying that the President was kept up to date during the Benghazi attack.

Yes, Pkr...I think I'm watching a rerun of that interview. Pfeiffer won't answer the questions.

Going back in time to the Bush days, here is my take on Seaoat and I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong, lol:
Seaoat thinks that the person elected to be President usually or always tries to do the right thing. But that a President is only human and makes mistakes. Those who were on the PNJ forum know that Seaoat also defended Bush against attacks from the Left. I do wonder how and if Seaoat would go about defending Romney from attacks from the Left, if Romney had been elected.

"Within 17 minutes of the initial reports, about 3:59 p.m., AFRICOM directed an unarmed and unmanned surveillance aircraft that was nearby to re-position overhead the Benghazi facility. My understanding is that that UAV arrived in about 1 hour 11 minutes after the attack had begun on the primary facility there to try to determine what was taking place.

Soon after the initial reports about the attack in Benghazi we received, Gen. Dempsey and I met with President Obama and he ordered all available DOD assets to respond to the attack in Libya and to protect U.S. personnel and interests in the region.

It’s important to remember that in addition to responding to the situation in Benghazi, we were also concerned about potential threats to U.S. personnel in Tunis, Tripoli, Cairo, Sanaa, and elsewhere that could potentially require a military response.

In consultation with Gen. Dempsey and AFRICOM commander Gen. [Carter] Ham, I directed several specific actions. First, we ordered a Marine fleet anti-terrorism secure team – a FAST team – stationed in Spain to prepare to deploy to Benghazi. A second FAST platoon was ordered to prepare to deploy to the Embassy in Tripoli. A special operations force, which was training in Central Europe, was ordered to prepare to deploy to an intermediate staging base in Southern Europe – Sigonella. And a special operations force based in the United States was ordered to deploy to an intermediate staging base in Southern Europe as well as Sigonella." Panetta

Sen. Graham: Now this is a hearing about Benghazi. We’ve talked about sequestration, which is important and… I just want to make sure that we understand what happened on September 11th regarding Benghazi. Your testimony, as I understand it, Secretary Panetta, you talked to the President of the United States one time.

Sec. Panetta: Talked to him on September 11th with regards to the fact that we were aware this attack was taking place.

Sen. Graham: One time?

Sec. Panetta: Right.

Sen. Graham: What time did you tell him that?

Sec. Panetta: I think that was approximately about 5 [Ed. note: 11 pm. Benghazi time.] (Discussion between Panetta and Dempsey)… yeah, about 5. Five o’clock.

Sen. Graham: General Dempsey, did you ever talk to the President of the United States at all?

Gen. Dempsey: I was with the Secretary when… at that same time.

Sen. Graham: Did you talk to the president?

Gen. Dempsey: Yes.

Sen. Graham: You talked to him how many times?

Gen. Dempsey: The same one time.

Sen. Graham: How long did the conversation last?

Gen. Dempsey: Uh, we were there in the office probably thirty minutes.

Sen. Graham: So you talked to him for thirty minutes, one time, and you never talked to him again? Neither one of you?

(Sec. Panetta): Til afterwards…

Sen. Graham: Until after the attack was over…

(Sec. Panetta): That’s right.

Sen. Graham: Thank you. Were there any AC-130 gunships within a thousand miles of Benghazi, Libya?

Sec. Panetta: No, sir.

Sen. Graham: Thank you. Were there any AC-130 gunships within two thousand miles of Benghazi, Libya?

Gen. Dempsey: I’d have to go back and look at a map to figure out the distance. The nearest ones I were aware of...

Sen. Graham: You said the F-16 was not a good platform to defend the consulate? What would have been the appropriate platform?

Gen. Dempsey: The appropriate platform, Senator, would have been to have boots on the ground ahead of the event. After the event is in conduct… it would be very difficult, to have a military…

Sen. Graham: Let’s just… would an AC-130 have been a good platform to help defend the consulate after the attack?

Gen. Dempsey: If we had the adequate understanding of what was on the ground so that we weren’t killing innocent…

Sen. Graham: Is there a saying in the military when you go into harm’s way, we’ve got your back?

(Gen. Dempsey): Of course, yes, sir.

Sen. Graham: Don’t you think that saying has been undermined here? That how can people in the military or the foreign service believe we’ve got their back when after seven… did you know how long the attack was going to last, Secretary Panetta?

Sec. Panetta: No idea.

Sen. Graham: Well… it could have lasted for two days! Now, my question is… was one airplane anywhere in the world deployed in the aid of the consulate? Did anybody launch an airplane? Was any airplane launched anywhere in the world to help these people?

Sec. Panetta: Well, we ultimately did launch 130s to go in and rescue these people.

Sen. Graham: When were they launched?

Sec. Panetta: At… in the period of time the team went in there and when we, uh, concluded, the attack was concluded, we said we’ve got to get the people out of there and that’s when…

Sen. Graham: Was there any airplane launched anywhere in the world before the attack was concluded?

(Gen. Dempsey): If you’re talking about a strike aircraft, no, Senator.

Sen. Graham: Okay. Was any soldier en route to help these people before the attack was concluded?

Sec. Panetta: Well, we had, uh, we had deployed these FAST teams, uh, and, uh…

Sen. Graham: Were they on the way.. (cross talk)… was anybody in motion before the attack was concluded to help these people? Anybody?

Gen. Dempsey: Only the personnel that were in Tripoli.

Sen. Graham: Okay. Was any DOD asset ever deployed to help these people before the end of the attack?

Gen. Dempsey: (Pause) Would you rephrase…

Sen. Graham: Was any DOD asset, aircraft or individual soldier, ever sent, put in motion, to help these people before the attack was over?

Gen. Dempsey: If I could… as soon as we knew there was an attack, the national mission force and the FAST teams began…

Sen. Graham: My question is… did anybody leave any base, anywhere to go to the aid of the people under attack in Benghazi, Libya before the attack ended?

Sec. Panetta: No, because the attack ended before they could get off the ground…

Sen. Graham: Okay, and we didn’t know how long it would last.