Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

WOW! Best person possible appointed to head the Select Committee on Benghazi, Rep. Trey Gowdy

+3
Wordslinger
ZVUGKTUBM
Markle
7 posters

Go to page : Previous  1, 2

Go down  Message [Page 2 of 2]

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

Damaged Eagle wrote:
Wordslinger wrote:There's something of a precedent being established here, I think.  Consider: it's a known fact that Bush and Cheney, and Rice and Powell all lied about the threat of WMD in Iraq.

And there was plenty of spin and cover-up by the Bush gang when their lies became obvious.

There was no serious talk of impeaching the President at that time.

But, then again, Bush was a white republican ...

WOW!  Best person possible appointed to head the Select Committee on Benghazi, Rep. Trey Gowdy - Page 2 Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSPeV-NJfGO5OyjjX8pzjfv_ccA3mHslzsauPc6bHobSrBvB940

Bullshit! People like you called for Bush to be tried as a war criminal.

When my response was, and still is... Go ahead and if he's acquitted of such accusations because he can prove misinformation was feed into the White House then let the treason trials begin.

Because if misinformation was being given to the White House at that time I want to know who was doing it and want the penalty for sending our guys and gals in harms way.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diOuUYcenW0

 Smile 

It's been well established that intel about Saddam's alleged WMD went both ways, and that Bush and his gang chose to ignore any information that indicated Saddam did not have a WMD program underway.

Doesn't that smell a lot like what Obama's being accused of in the Benghazi affair?

Reality!

Markle

Markle

Wordslinger wrote:There's something of a precedent being established here, I think.  Consider: it's a known fact that Bush and Cheney, and Rice and Powell all lied about the threat of WMD in Iraq.

And there was plenty of spin and cover-up by the Bush gang when their lies became obvious.

There was no serious talk of impeaching the President at that time.

But, then again, Bush was a white republican ...

Wrong again, no serious talk about impeaching President George Walker Bush. He had not done anything wrong.

You need a reminder from time to time about the WMD's don't you? Must be those meds.

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow."
- President Clinton in 1998 “

[…], when I say to Saddam Hussein, "You cannot defy the will of the world", and when I say to him, "You have used weapons of mass destruction before; we are determined to deny you the capacity to use them again.”
- President Clinton , Jan. 27, 1998 – State of the Union

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 .

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

“Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraqis nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.”

“Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.”

“Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.”
- President Bill Clinton, Dec. 16, 1998

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 Clinton Secretary of State

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed."
- Madeline Albright, 1998 Clinton Secretary of State

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 "

Update: September 8, 2005 - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser was sentenced to community service and probation and fined $50,000 for illegally removing highly classified documents from the National Archives and intentionally destroying some of them..

[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 .

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 .

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 .

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 .

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 .

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons but has not yet achieved nuclear capability."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 .

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal."
- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction."
- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 .

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003" (Currently President Barack Hussein Obama’s Secretary of State)

I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out."
- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Saddam is gone and good riddance," former President Bill Clinton said yesterday, but he urged President Bush to resist trying to get even with nations that opposed the war.

"There are German and French soldiers in Afghanistan today. Does the President want them to come home?" Clinton said at a Manhattan forum on corporate integrity.

He praised Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for their handling of the war, but said Bush should have waited longer before attacking for the "chance that either [Saddam Hussein] would have disarmed or . . . we would have had far more members of the Security Council with us."

Clinton also said Bush should not be faulted if banned weapons of mass destruction aren't found.

"I don't think you can criticize the President for trying to act on the belief that they have a substantial amount of chemical and biological stock. . . . That is what I was always told," Clinton said.
- Former President Clinton Wednesday, April 16, 2003

"Could Be One of the Great Achievements of This Administration" The vice president said he’d been to Iraq 17 times and visits the country every three months or so. "I know every one of the major players in all the segments of that society" he said. "It's impressed me. I've been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences."
- Vice President Joe Biden (D) Feb. 10, 2010

How has the war President Barack Hussein Obama said we SHOULD have been fighting going? How is the Middle East going now that President Obama is President? Oh, Afghanistan just crossed 2,000 American fatalities. Seventy percent of whom died since President Obama took office.

And now the Obama administration wants to TAKE CREDIT for the Iraq war…whew….


Guest


Guest

by PkrBum Today at 2:54 pm
Considering that this was in the final days of a campaign for potus during which a main theme was his success in destroying terrorists... I don't think any leftist will ever find any fault in a diversion being used. The end there justifies the means.

That said... we've never heard explicitly where the heavy arms these terrorist used came from. That may be the smoking gun.

If it turned out we provided them... that certainly fits the criteria seagoat layed out. Arming an enemy is treason.

But as we've seen in similar scandals... the president almost certainly maintained plausible deniability.
---------
Cover up and lied about from minute one after the COWH knew about it. Like o have been saying this house of cards will fall and it finally is .....

2seaoat



And there was plenty of spin and cover-up by the Bush gang when their lies became obvious.

There was no serious talk of impeaching the President at that time.

But, then again, Bush was a white republican ...


President Bush most certainly mislead congress. There is no crime in the same. Why did the democrats not pursue impeachment.........because they read the constitution and understand that it would be just as inappropriate as President Bush jailing congressman, it was entirely inappropriate to think that congress in our constitutional system has rule over the executive.....they do not. I sometimes think that the Republicans who once were the smart people have given up intelligence and would rather pander to the lowest hanging fruit.......AGAIN....President Obama is not going to be convicted in an impeachment trial, and deception of congress is not high crime or misdemeanor.

Guest


Guest

Wordslinger wrote:
Damaged Eagle wrote:
Wordslinger wrote:There's something of a precedent being established here, I think.  Consider: it's a known fact that Bush and Cheney, and Rice and Powell all lied about the threat of WMD in Iraq.

And there was plenty of spin and cover-up by the Bush gang when their lies became obvious.

There was no serious talk of impeaching the President at that time.

But, then again, Bush was a white republican ...

WOW!  Best person possible appointed to head the Select Committee on Benghazi, Rep. Trey Gowdy - Page 2 Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSPeV-NJfGO5OyjjX8pzjfv_ccA3mHslzsauPc6bHobSrBvB940

Bullshit! People like you called for Bush to be tried as a war criminal.

When my response was, and still is... Go ahead and if he's acquitted of such accusations because he can prove misinformation was feed into the White House then let the treason trials begin.

Because if misinformation was being given to the White House at that time I want to know who was doing it and want the penalty for sending our guys and gals in harms way.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diOuUYcenW0

 Smile 

It's been well established that intel about Saddam's alleged WMD went both ways, and that Bush and his gang chose to ignore any information that indicated Saddam did not have a WMD program underway.

Doesn't that smell a lot like what Obama's being accused of in the Benghazi affair?

Reality!

All saddam had to do was comply with the un inspections to which he had agreed and he would likely still be the iraqi dictator.

The real reality.

Guest


Guest

Wordslinger wrote:
Damaged Eagle wrote:
Wordslinger wrote:There's something of a precedent being established here, I think.  Consider: it's a known fact that Bush and Cheney, and Rice and Powell all lied about the threat of WMD in Iraq.

And there was plenty of spin and cover-up by the Bush gang when their lies became obvious.

There was no serious talk of impeaching the President at that time.

But, then again, Bush was a white republican ...


Bullshit! People like you called for Bush to be tried as a war criminal.

When my response was, and still is... Go ahead and if he's acquitted of such accusations because he can prove misinformation was feed into the White House then let the treason trials begin.

Because if misinformation was being given to the White House at that time I want to know who was doing it and want the penalty for sending our guys and gals in harms way.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diOuUYcenW0

 Smile 

It's been well established that intel about Saddam's alleged WMD went both ways, and that Bush and his gang chose to ignore any information that indicated Saddam did not have a WMD program underway.

Doesn't that smell a lot like what Obama's being accused of in the Benghazi affair?

Reality!

WOW!  Best person possible appointed to head the Select Committee on Benghazi, Rep. Trey Gowdy - Page 2 Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTltYY4tEftSGSSVYoRHG7JbK_3I0gXmpnfNNa_qjAfmwhaRNf4

Then the current president has nothing to fear by releasing all the records on this incident if he had information pointing both ways... and the Fast & Furious incident too.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diOuUYcenW0

 Smile

Sal

Sal

2seaoat wrote:And there was plenty of spin and cover-up by the Bush gang when their lies became obvious.

There was no serious talk of impeaching the President at that time.

But, then again, Bush was a white republican ...


President Bush most certainly mislead congress.  There is no crime in the same.  Why did the democrats not pursue impeachment.........because they read the constitution and understand that it would be just as inappropriate as President Bush jailing congressman, it was entirely inappropriate to think that congress in our constitutional system has rule over the executive.....they do not.   I sometimes think that the Republicans who once were the smart people have given up intelligence and would rather pander to the lowest hanging fruit.......AGAIN....President Obama is not going to be convicted in an impeachment trial, and deception of congress is not high crime or misdemeanor.

I don't even know what the fuck you're talking about. 


The issue isn't whether or not the President misled Congress, it's whether or not Susan Rice misled David Gregory. 


That's literally what this is about. 

2seaoat



I don't think any leftist will ever find any fault in a diversion being used

Pace,
You are smarter than this......I stood alone defending President Bush on the PNJ when idiots talked about impeachment, exactly as I am defending President Obama, not because of my left or right leanings, but simply because I am a scholar of the constitution and I can think. This is not even close. Sadly, people are just stirring up nonsense and people who need to revisit their high school constitution test.

Markle

Markle

2seaoat wrote:Sorry Mr. Markle.......you need to open the constitution and read it for the first time.  The President does not have to attend a congressional hearing, cannot be held in contempt of a congressional committee, and certainly does not have to respond to them at all.....Please explain to me under what spacecraft you determined an Executive under our constitutional system will be guilty of a misdemeanor for lying to congress.........he certainly would not be under oath because he would never subject himself to their jurisdiction.....please revisit Watergate and the constitutional questions raised in the United States Vs Nixon, and you will understand that there was a special prosecutor appointed and in fact it was a common criminal investigation.  The Supreme Court was unanimous in an 8-0 decision that the Executive must comply with the courts.

Now let me help you with President Clinton and what he was charged with......obstruction of justice and perjury, and this was again the COURT's jurisdiction.......NOT CONGRESS.    An executive lying to congress is not perjury unless that President VOLUNTARILY submitted to the congressional jurisdiction and was sworn in and committed perjury.  You do understand that to convict a President of high crimes and misdemeanors it requires a two thirds vote, and even in the Clinton clear case of obstructing justice, five Republicans voted against the impeachment because intelligent people realize this extraordinary remedy that our founding fathers put in the constitution could be used to defeat the democratic will of the people if this became a caviler exercise.

Please Mr. Markle, read the constitution before you fall for the garbage you are being fed.  President Obama will never be impeached.   It is the realm of the slow witted.

Here is some help for you.
https://online.hillsdale.edu/

If President Barack Hussein Obama knew about the cover up. He's toast.

Former President Richard Millhouse Nixon did not know of the break in at Watergate. He aided in the cover up.

Keep hoping!

Guest


Guest

PkrBum wrote:

All saddam had to do was comply with the un inspections to which he had agreed and he would likely still be the iraqi dictator.

The real reality.

WOW!  Best person possible appointed to head the Select Committee on Benghazi, Rep. Trey Gowdy - Page 2 Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTzxi57wRQO6eXKCD_uQB7djo6ZSXeaLW0FzcFYmh0KbJOO0Bp1

I agree with you totally.

It's not like he carpet bombed a sovereign nation just because he could and then left an embassy unprotected in the same country to be attacked in the power vacuum that followed.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQzUCO7rG0M

 Smile 

Guest


Guest

It's not as if lying is anything new from this administration. Clapper lied to congress about nsa spying on citizens. Holder lied to congress about giving guns to criminal cartels and the ap/media supeonas/intimidation. That cia supervisor over libya that sat right their in front of congress and didn't say a word when the questions were asked who changed the talkingpoints... when it was HIM that did it. Carney, rice, hillary, obama all pressed this youtube narrative as hard as they could... hell they even produced a fucking apology commercial sent to the middle east. I didn't see a single one of them sent to jail... much less loose their job.

This is the least transparent administration in the history of this country... PERIOD... END OF STORY.

Markle

Markle

Sal wrote:
2seaoat wrote:And there was plenty of spin and cover-up by the Bush gang when their lies became obvious.

There was no serious talk of impeaching the President at that time.

But, then again, Bush was a white republican ...


President Bush most certainly mislead congress.  There is no crime in the same.  Why did the democrats not pursue impeachment.........because they read the constitution and understand that it would be just as inappropriate as President Bush jailing congressman, it was entirely inappropriate to think that congress in our constitutional system has rule over the executive.....they do not.   I sometimes think that the Republicans who once were the smart people have given up intelligence and would rather pander to the lowest hanging fruit.......AGAIN....President Obama is not going to be convicted in an impeachment trial, and deception of congress is not high crime or misdemeanor.

I don't even know what the fuck you're talking about. 


The issue isn't whether or not the President misled Congress, it's whether or not Susan Rice misled David Gregory.

That's literally what this is about.

Wrong again my good friend. The ISSUE is whether or not President Barack Hussein Obama LIED to and intentionally MISLED the American People about the cause of the Benghazi.

You probably don't recall but this was just days after President Obama had told us that Al Qaeda was back on it's heels, on the run.

Sal

Sal

I
PkrBum wrote:It's not as if lying is anything new from this administration. Clapper lied to congress about nsa spying on citizens. Holder lied to congress about giving guns to criminal cartels and the ap/media supeonas/intimidation. That cia supervisor over libya that sat right their in front of congress and didn't say a word when the questions were asked who changed the talkingpoints... when it was HIM that did it. Carney, rice, hillary, obama all pressed this youtube narrative as hard as they could... hell they even produced a fucking apology commercial sent to the middle east. I didn't see a single one of them sent to jail... much less loose their job.

This is the least transparent administration in the history of this country... PERIOD... END OF STORY.


This is what flailing looks like. 

Guest


Guest

Sal wrote:I
PkrBum wrote:It's not as if lying is anything new from this administration. Clapper lied to congress about nsa spying on citizens. Holder lied to congress about giving guns to criminal cartels and the ap/media supeonas/intimidation. That cia supervisor over libya that sat right their in front of congress and didn't say a word when the questions were asked who changed the talkingpoints... when it was HIM that did it. Carney, rice, hillary, obama all pressed this youtube narrative as hard as they could... hell they even produced a fucking apology commercial sent to the middle east. I didn't see a single one of them sent to jail... much less loose their job.

This is the least transparent administration in the history of this country... PERIOD... END OF STORY.


This is what flailing looks like. 

And you are the poster boy for useful idiots that don't care if they're lied to... as long as it's their party lying to them.

Yea Team..!!

2seaoat



Wrong again my good friend. The ISSUE is whether or not President Barack Hussein Obama LIED to and intentionally MISLED the American People about the cause of the Benghazi.

You have to be kidding.....have you read anything. This is hysterical. You actually think that a president of the United States is going to get into any trouble for what you are alleging? Can I suggest to you that you have lost your mind if you think this is relevant, but just for kicks.....have I told you that I listened to his speech in the rose garden when he said the attack was an act of terror, and I can honestly say that only a complete idiot would think with the tribal conflicts, and all the different interests in Libya, that someone would attack the CIA agents for grins and giggles.......of course it was a terror attack, and yes it could also be a reaction to the video, and both of those concepts can co-exist and it certainly is not a zero sum game where it is all terror or all video.....and therein is what makes this hilarious.......both sides have some truth in their arguments........funny stuff if it was not so disrespecting of all the good things Martin and his comrades had accomplished......INDEPENDENT OF THE SUITS IN WASHINGTON, which suddenly you think should micro manage this conflict......is anybody home Mr. Markle, or are you simply posting this drivel on command.

2seaoat



And you are the poster boy for useful idiots that don't care if they're lied to... as long as it's their party lying to them.

Yea Team..!!


What exactly was this lie that you have your panties in a wad about. Am I missing something?

Guest


Guest

2seaoat wrote:And you are the poster boy for useful idiots that don't care if they're lied to... as long as it's their party lying to them.

Yea Team..!!


What exactly was this lie that you have your panties in a wad about. Am I missing something?

Try to keep up please... or at minimum back track a bit when you become confused and lost.

2seaoat



Try to keep up please... or at minimum back track a bit when you become confused and lost.


What lie.....how hard is this to answer?

Markle

Markle

2seaoat wrote:Wrong again my good friend. The ISSUE is whether or not President Barack Hussein Obama LIED to and intentionally MISLED the American People about the cause of the Benghazi.

You have to be kidding.....have you read anything.   This is hysterical.  You actually think that a president of the United States is going to get into any trouble for what you are alleging?   Can I suggest to you that you have lost your mind if you think this is relevant, but just for kicks.....have I told you that I listened to his speech in the rose garden when he said the attack was an act of terror, and I can honestly say that only a complete idiot would think with the tribal conflicts, and all the different interests in Libya, that someone would attack the CIA agents for grins and giggles.......of course it was a terror attack, and yes it could also be a reaction to the video, and both of those concepts can co-exist and it certainly is not a zero sum game where it is all terror or all video.....and therein is what makes this hilarious.......both sides have some truth in their arguments........funny stuff if it was not so disrespecting of all the good things Martin and his comrades had accomplished......INDEPENDENT OF THE SUITS IN WASHINGTON, which suddenly you think should micro manage this conflict......is anybody home Mr. Markle, or are you simply posting this drivel on command.

As you KNOW, that is NOT what he said NOR was it what he said two weeks later in the United Nations.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/05/02/video-montage-shows-obama-hillary-susan-rice-and-jay-carney-all-blaming-benghazi-on-the-video/

Guest


Guest

The pdf of the emails can be downloaded here:

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-benghazi-documents-point-white-house-misleading-talking-points/

The Rhodes email was sent on sent on Friday, September 14, 2012, at 8:09 p.m. with the subject line: “RE: PREP CALL with Susan, Saturday at 4:00 pm ET.” The documents show that the “prep” was for Amb. Rice’s Sunday news show appearances to discuss the Benghazi attack.

The document lists as a “Goal”: “To underscore that these protests are rooted in and Internet video, and not a broader failure or policy.”

Rhodes returns to the “Internet video” scenario later in the email, the first point in a section labeled “Top-lines”:

[W]e’ve made our views on this video crystal clear. The United States government had nothing to do with it. We reject its message and its contents. We find it disgusting and reprehensible. But there is absolutely no justification at all for responding to this movie with violence. And we are working to make sure that people around the globe hear that message.

Among the top administration PR personnel who received the Rhodes memo were White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, Deputy Press Secretary Joshua Earnest, then-White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer, then-White House Deputy Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri, then-National Security Council Director of Communications Erin Pelton, Special Assistant to the Press Secretary Howli Ledbetter, and then-White House Senior Advisor and political strategist David Plouffe.

The Rhodes communications strategy email also instructs recipients to portray Obama as “steady and statesmanlike” throughout the crisis. Another of the “Goals” of the PR offensive, Rhodes says, is “[T]o reinforce the President and Administration’s strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges.” He later includes as a PR “Top-line” talking point:

I think that people have come to trust that President Obama provides leadership that is steady and statesmanlike. There are always going to be challenges that emerge around the world, and time and again, he has shown that we can meet them.

The documents Judicial Watch obtained also include a September 12, 2012, email from former DeputySpokesman at U.S. Mission to the United Nations Payton Knopf to Susan Rice, noting that at a press briefing earlier that day, State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland explicitly stated that the attack on the consulate had been well planned. The email sent by Knopf to Rice at 5:42 pm said:

Responding to a question about whether it was an organized terror attack, Toria said that she couldn’t speak to the identity of the perpetrators but that it was clearly a complex attack.

In the days following the Knopf email, Rice appeared on ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox News and CNN still claiming the assaults occurred “spontaneously” in response to the “hateful video.” On Sunday, September 16 Rice told CBS’s “Face the Nation:”

But based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy–sparked by this hateful video.

The Judicial Watch documents confirm that CIA talking points, that were prepared for Congress and may have been used by Rice on “Face the Nation” and four additional Sunday talk shows on September 16, had been heavily edited by then-CIA deputy director Mike Morell. According to one email:

The first draft apparently seemed unsuitable….because they seemed to encourage the reader to infer incorrectly that the CIA had warned about a specific attack on our embassy. On the SVTS, Morell noted that these points were not good and he had taken a heavy hand to editing them. He noted that he would be happy to work with [then deputy chief of staff to Hillary Clinton]] Jake Sullivan and Rhodes to develop appropriate talking points.

The documents obtained by Judicial Watch also contain numerous emails sent during the assault on the Benghazi diplomatic facility. The contemporaneous and dramatic emails describe the assault as an “attack”:

September 11, 2012, 6:41 PM – Senior Advisor Eric Pelofsky, to Susan Rice:

As reported, the Benghazi compound came under attack and it took a bit of time for the ‘Annex’ colleagues and Libyan February 17 brigade to secure it. One of our colleagues was killed – IMO Sean Smith. Amb Chris Stevens, who was visiting Benghazi this week is missing. U.S. and Libyan colleagues are looking for him…

At 8:51 pm, Pelofsky tells Rice and others that “Post received a call from a person using an [sic] RSO phone that Chris was given saying the caller was with a person matching Chris’s description at a hospital and that he was alive and well. Of course, if the he were alive and well, one could ask why he didn’t make the call himself.”

Later that evening, Pelofsky emailed Rice that he was “very, very worried. In particular that he [Stevens] is either dead or this was a concerted effort to kidnap him.” Rice replied, “God forbid.”

September 11, 2012, 4:49 PM – State Department press officer John Fogarty reporting on “Libya update from Beth Jones”:

Beth Jones [Acting Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs] just spoke with DCM Tripoli Greg Hicks, who advised a Libyan militia (we now know this is the 17 Feb brigade, as requested by Emb office) is responding to the attackon the diplomatic mission in Benghazi.”

Material is blacked out (or redacted) in many emails.

Sal

Sal

So, he advised she follow the CIA's talking points. 


Case cracked!

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

Markle wrote:
2seaoat wrote:Wrong again my good friend. The ISSUE is whether or not President Barack Hussein Obama LIED to and intentionally MISLED the American People about the cause of the Benghazi.

You have to be kidding.....have you read anything.   This is hysterical.  You actually think that a president of the United States is going to get into any trouble for what you are alleging?   Can I suggest to you that you have lost your mind if you think this is relevant, but just for kicks.....have I told you that I listened to his speech in the rose garden when he said the attack was an act of terror, and I can honestly say that only a complete idiot would think with the tribal conflicts, and all the different interests in Libya, that someone would attack the CIA agents for grins and giggles.......of course it was a terror attack, and yes it could also be a reaction to the video, and both of those concepts can co-exist and it certainly is not a zero sum game where it is all terror or all video.....and therein is what makes this hilarious.......both sides have some truth in their arguments........funny stuff if it was not so disrespecting of all the good things Martin and his comrades had accomplished......INDEPENDENT OF THE SUITS IN WASHINGTON, which suddenly you think should micro manage this conflict......is anybody home Mr. Markle, or are you simply posting this drivel on command.

As you KNOW, that is NOT what he said NOR was it what he said two weeks later in the United Nations.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/05/02/video-montage-shows-obama-hillary-susan-rice-and-jay-carney-all-blaming-benghazi-on-the-video/

WOW!  Best person possible appointed to head the Select Committee on Benghazi, Rep. Trey Gowdy - Page 2 Laughi28

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Markle

Markle

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:
Markle wrote:
2seaoat wrote:Wrong again my good friend. The ISSUE is whether or not President Barack Hussein Obama LIED to and intentionally MISLED the American People about the cause of the Benghazi.

You have to be kidding.....have you read anything.   This is hysterical.  You actually think that a president of the United States is going to get into any trouble for what you are alleging?   Can I suggest to you that you have lost your mind if you think this is relevant, but just for kicks.....have I told you that I listened to his speech in the rose garden when he said the attack was an act of terror, and I can honestly say that only a complete idiot would think with the tribal conflicts, and all the different interests in Libya, that someone would attack the CIA agents for grins and giggles.......of course it was a terror attack, and yes it could also be a reaction to the video, and both of those concepts can co-exist and it certainly is not a zero sum game where it is all terror or all video.....and therein is what makes this hilarious.......both sides have some truth in their arguments........funny stuff if it was not so disrespecting of all the good things Martin and his comrades had accomplished......INDEPENDENT OF THE SUITS IN WASHINGTON, which suddenly you think should micro manage this conflict......is anybody home Mr. Markle, or are you simply posting this drivel on command.

As you KNOW, that is NOT what he said NOR was it what he said two weeks later in the United Nations.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/05/02/video-montage-shows-obama-hillary-susan-rice-and-jay-carney-all-blaming-benghazi-on-the-video/

WOW!  Best person possible appointed to head the Select Committee on Benghazi, Rep. Trey Gowdy - Page 2 Laughi28

Cute try. Which video is NOT true? Show us where President Barack Hussein Obama is NOT before the UN 2 weeks later saying the attack was due to a video. Come on, now is your chance, step up and show off for your Progressive good buds!

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 2 of 2]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum