Benghazi memos reportedly revised 12 times

[BobaFett1]

New details about the Obama administration's initial story-line on the Benghazi attack are raising additional questions about top-level efforts to downplay terrorism, with one report showing a State Department official pushed to delete a section that could have been used to "beat up" her department.
The fresh reports have surfaced two days after three whistle-blowers testified on Capitol Hill about the Benghazi attack. One of them sharply challenged the administration's decision to describe the attack out of the gate as a protest gone wrong.
ABC News reported Friday that, despite administration claims that the flawed description reflected the best intelligence at the time, the talking points that led to the statement were revised 12 times.
Initial versions, as has been previously reported, contained references to Al Qaeda that were later deleted. But the latest excerpts show how State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland pressed the CIA to scrub references to the agency's prior security warnings.
According to ABC News, the original paragraph read:
"The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al-Qa'ida in Benghazi and eastern Libya. These noted that, since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador's convoy. We cannot rule out the individuals has previously surveilled the U.S. facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks."
But Nuland wrote that the lines "could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either? Concerned ..."
The paragraph in question was then reportedly deleted.
The Weekly Standard, which referenced that exchange briefly in a prior account, also reported new details Friday, describing how then-CIA Director David Petraeus voiced surprise when he learned the Saturday after the attack that officials had deleted all prior references to Al Qaeda and jihadists, leaving only the word "extremists."
U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice would use the final version of the talking points to say on several Sunday shows that the attack was triggered by protests over an anti-Islam film.
While administration officials and congressional Democrats have described the protracted debate over the talking points as politically motivated and inconsequential, the testimony this week drew new attention to it.
Greg Hicks, former deputy chief of mission in Libya, said Rice's comments actually hurt the FBI investigation by insulting the Libyan president -- who gave a conflicting account at the time by saying the attack was premeditated.
Hicks said the anti-Islam film was actually a "nonevent" in Libya, and his "jaw dropped" when he heard Rice's comments.
ABC News reported that the CIA's first drafts did say the attack appeared to be "spontaneously inspired" by the protests at the embassy in Cairo. However, the early versions also said "we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa'ida participated in the attack."
The State Department and White House have continued to defend their actions and intervention in light of the new details.
After it was first revealed that references to security concerns -- in addition to references to Al Qaeda -- were removed, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said: "What we said and what remains true to this day is that the intelligence community drafted and redrafted these points."
He defended administration claims that the faulty statements were merely the product of incomplete intelligence in a rapidly changing environment. Despite the excerpts, he stood by claims that White House involvement was minimal.
"The fact that there are inputs is always the case in a process like this. But the only edits made by anyone here at the White House were stylistic and non-substantive. They corrected the description of the building or the facility in Benghazi from 'consulate' to 'diplomatic facility' and the like," he said.
State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell also said Rice's comments were based on the intelligence community's "best assessment that there was not any evidence of months-long pre-planning or pre-meditation, which remains their assessment."


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/10/benghazi-talking-points-reportedly-revised-12-times-official-concerned-would/#ixzz2Sunr7jml

[BobaFett1]

You know...if all we could get was the person who issued the order to "stand down",we wouldnt need all these other investigations..that would pretty much clarify things. Panetta will probably take the fall for that, since he wants nothing more to do with politics.

[ChumpDumper]

lol you really eat up the talking points.

Deaths matter when a Democrat is in the White House

[BobaFett1]

lol you really eat up the talking points.

Deaths matter when a Democrat is in the White House

ChumpDumper

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://images1.fanpop.com/images/photos/2400000/Sixteen-Candles-Farmer-Ted-Moments-farmer-ted-2481171-1600-900.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.fanpop.com/clubs/farmer-ted/images/2481171/title/sixteen-candles-farmer-ted-moments-screencap&h=900&w=1600&sz=256&tbnid=yQ48n6x2EBVI8M:&tbnh=86&tbnw=153&zoom=1&usg=__dKIaWgWU-66IiP1_-XDr2oUGQV0=&docid=ElF2BBneREk4wM&sa=X&ei=4TyNUbzYBafs0QH5loHIDQ&ved=0CJsBEP4dMBA:lol

http://cdn.buzznet.com/assets/users16/pattygopez/default/ted-sixteen-candles--large-msg-131051452425.jpg

[ChumpDumper]

One can always tell when people like you don't know what they are talking about.

[George Gervin's Afro]

lol you really eat up the talking points.

Deaths matter when a Democrat is in the White House

4 deaths > 5,000 deaths

outrage!

[BobaFett1]

One can always tell when people like you don't know what they are talking about.

http://static.quickmeme.com/media/social/qm.gif

[BobaFett1]

http://static.quickmeme.com/media/social/qm.gif

[ChumpDumper]

See what I mean?

[BobaFett1]

See what I mean?

Stay on subject jackwagon.
http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3oo0db/

[ChumpDumper]

OK, are intelligence assessments often revised before release?

Yes or no -- and back up your answer with linked explanations.

[mercos]

They wanted certain information taken out while the investigation was still going on. People act like the administration is still blaming demonstrations and the video. We knew the truth within days once the matter was thoroughly looked into. Its not a cover up when the accused is continually releasing information as it becomes available. The fact that now everyone is pointing the finger at Hillary (probably running in 2016) and not Obama (who can't run again) shows just how politically motivated this whole circus is.

[TeyshaBlue]

yonifett fail.

[boutons_deux]

yonifett fail.

yoni was pretty smart, just wrong

bubbafart is just dumb

[George Gervin's Afro]

yoni was pretty smart, just wrong

bubbafart is just dumb

jacksommerset dumb...

[ChumpDumper]

http://cdn.gunaxin.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Sarlacc_Surprise.jpg

[TeyshaBlue]

http://cdn.gunaxin.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Sarlacc_Surprise.jpg

:lmao:lmao

[Koolaid_Man]

I really don't give a shit...Obama won twice and Hilary will win next....I don't care bout Benghazi...

[Wild Cobra]

Chumbty Dumbty:

http://cdn.wegotthiscovered.com/wp-content/uploads/sixteen-candles-review-2.jpg

[ChumpDumper]

So you're not staying on the subject now?

I figured my simple question would be your Sarlaac.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And Hillary dropped a deuce not one but twice that day....

The administrations line was that the situation was constantly evolving as they gained new intelligence.

:lol citing Fox News

It's like citing nakedcapitalism.

[BobaFett1]

:lol
:lmao:lmao

:lmao

[DMX7]

Benghazi memos reportedly revised 12 times

Hmm... And yet I still don't care.

[BobaFett1]

Hmm... And yet I still don't care.

Sad day when a American does not care.

[boutons_deux]

nobody cares about Repug/Fox fabricated scandals, outside of their bubba choir.

[BobaFett1]

nobody cares about Repug/Fox fabricated scandals, outside of their bubba choir.

LOL you in denial.

[RandomGuy]

You know...if all we could get was the person who issued the order to "stand down",we wouldnt need all these other investigations..that would pretty much clarify things. Panetta will probably take the fall for that, since he wants nothing more to do with politics.

"stand down" what? What evidence do you have about an order to "stand down"? Could I see it? Link?

[TeyshaBlue]

Stand down = pull it. lol

[RandomGuy]

."The fact that there are inputs is always the case in a process like this. But the only edits made by anyone here at the White House were stylistic and non-substantive. They corrected the description of the building or the facility in Benghazi from 'consulate' to 'diplomatic facility' and the like," he said.
State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell also said Rice's comments were based on the intelligence community's "best assessment that there was not any evidence of months-long pre-planning or pre-meditation, which remains their assessment."


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/10/benghazi-talking-points-reportedly-revised-12-times-official-concerned-would/#ixzz2Sunr7jml


OK, are intelligence assessments often revised before release?

Yes or no -- and back up your answer with linked explanations.


:lol

:lmao

That isn't really an answer. I will ask because it seems pretty important to the OP.


OK, are intelligence assessments often revised before release?
Yes or no -- and back up your answer with linked explanations.

2nd time this is asked.

[DarrinS]

Wow, people really defending this shit? smh

[Th'Pusher]

Wow, people really defending this shit? smh
Defending what?

[ChumpDumper]

Wow, people really defending this shit? smhTell us what you are talking about.

No one can seem to tell us what to be outraged about here.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Defending what?

[mouse]

"stand down" what? What evidence do you have about an order to "stand down"? Could I see it? Link?

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/08/benghazi-witness-on-stand-down-order-first-time-in-my-career-that-a-diplomat-has-more-balls-than-somebody-in-the-military/


ld3WPjgCtuU

[ChumpDumper]

Glenn Beck and Alex Jones said it!

Credibility squared!

Funny that no one trying to make a big deal out of this can explain it himself.

[RandomGuy]

Wow, people really defending this shit? smh

It would seem so. How people could defend phony outrage pushed by Fox News puzzles me.

[RandomGuy]

Glenn Beck and Alex Jones said it!

Credibility squared!

Funny that no one trying to make a big deal out of this can explain it himself.

Funny sad or funny ha ha?

[TeyshaBlue]

Funny sad or funny ha ha?

Yes.

[SA210]

Benghazi whistle-blower a Democrat, voted for Hillary and Obama twice


A key Benghazi whistle-blower who has allegedly been punished for speaking out against the administration is a registered Democrat who voted for both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

The lawyer of Gregory Hicks, the former U.S. deputy chief of mission in Libya who testified before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Wednesday, confirmed the information to The Daily Caller on Saturday.

According to the lawyer, Victoria Toensing, Hicks voted for Clinton during the 2008 primary, and for then-Illinois Sen. Obama in the 2008 general election. He again voted for Obama in 2012.

“The fact is he is a registered Democrat in Virginia. The fact is he voted for Hilary in the primary and Obama and then again for Obama,” Toensing said.

Toensing added that she did not know he was a Democrat until the day before the hearing. “I’m not interested in that,” she said. “I’m interested in government not abusing its powers.”

Hicks testified before the House Oversight Committee this week regarding the events that took place on Sept. 11, 2012 in Benghazi and recalled how the State Department told him not to cooperate with the congressional investigation into the events, which led to the deaths of four Americans.

Hicks further testified that he has been demoted since Benghazi.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/11/benghazi-whistle-blower-a-democrat-voted-for-hillary-and-obama-twice/#ixzz2TCsnoX3Z

[Winehole23]

Wow, people really defending this shit? smhwho please? be specific if you can.

[RandomGuy]

Looks like Boba has run away from his own thread.

[boutons_deux]

Full White House Benghazi Email Undermines GOP’s Cover-Up Claims (http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/05/14/2009571/cnn-benghazi-emails/)
CNN has obtained the full email (http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/14/cnn-exclusive-white-house-email-contradicts-benghazi-leaks/) from a White House official on the Benghazi talking points, which undermines claims that the administration acted deliberately to change the intelligence community’s assessment.
Much of the controversy surrounding the Obama administration’s response to the Sept. 11, 2012 attack on a diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya has focused on a set of unclassified talking points provided to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice. Rice delivered those points five days after the attack, appearing on all five major Sunday news shows. Rice subsequently came under attack for not mentioning Al Qaeda and referencing an anti-Islamic video as the impetus for the attacks, becoming the symbol of the White House’s supposed goal (http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/05/14/2007111/dick-cheney-benghazi-one-of-the-worst-incidences-i-can-recall-in-my-career/) of misleading the American public about what happened.

In recent days, the talking points have come back to the forefront of conservative outrage, as several outlets have released the full edits (http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/Benghazi%20Talking%20Points%20Timeline.pdf) made to the document, along with the original version the CIA drafted. Alongside those edits were emails that these outlets claimed showed the White House engaging in a flurry of activity (http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/benghazi-talking-points_720543.html?nopager=1) that would help President Obama gain reelection. One such email from Deputy National Security Director Ben Rhodes allegedly showed the White House insisting that State Department requests that references to terrorism and Al Qaeda be “scrubbed” from the draft be discussed more fully.

CNN’s Jake Tapper, however, obtained the full text (http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/14/cnn-exclusive-white-house-email-contradicts-benghazi-leaks/) of the email Rhodes sent to the email thread of officials across the government providing their input on the document. Viewed in full, the document shows a distinct lack of intent to maliciously change the narrative compared to paraphrased versions:


All –

Sorry to be late to this discussion. We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation.

There is a ton of wrong information getting out into the public domain from Congress and people who are not particularly informed. Insofar as we have firmed up assessments that don’t compromise intel or the investigation, we need to have the
capability to correct the record, as there are significant policy and messaging ramifications that would flow from a hardened mis-impression.


We can take this up tomorrow morning at deputies.

The elevation of the talking points to infamy has seemingly instead helped to undercut the Republican case that a cover-up occurred. In actuality, the only thing to be revealed during this latest round of investigation seems to be a turf war (http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/05/10/1994781/abc-benghazi-editing/) between the CIA and State Department to avoid further blame for the attack, one that played out in the editing process of the talking points. In the end, contrary to Republican claims, the intelligence community did have the last say (http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/05/13/why-petraeus-didnt-like-the-benghazi-talking-po/194033) in what went into the talking points, including that the attacks “were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo,” and immediately preceded by a demonstration.


http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/05/14/2009571/cnn-benghazi-emails/

[Nbadan]

Turns out the press got played again by Republicans. Jake Tapper has the smoking gun of the original email from the Obama administration which differs significantly from the “leaked emails” ABC ran with. In an exclusive for CNN, Tapper reveals that CNN has the original email sent by a top Obama aide, regarding the administration’s reaction to the Benghazi attacks. Tapper reported, “The actual email differs from how sources characterized it to two different media organizations.”



“The actual email from then-Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes appears to show that whomever (sic) leaked it did so in a way that made it appear that the White House primarily concerned with the State Department’s desire to remove references and warnings about specific terrorist groups so as to not bring criticism to the department,” Tapper concludes (my bold).

http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/14/cnn-exclusive-white-house-email-contradicts-benghazi-leaks/



The email was sent on Friday, September 14, 2012, at 9:34 p.m. and was obtained by CNN from a U.S. government source. Ironically, the email points out that there is a “ton of wrong information” coming from Congress and people who are not particularly informed (waving hello to Congressional Republicans and Mitt Romney):



“Sorry to be late to this discussion. We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation.

“There is a ton of wrong information getting out into the public domain from Congress and people who are not particularly informed. Insofar as we have firmed up assessments that don’t compromise intel or the investigation, we need to have the capability to correct the record, as there are significant policy and messaging ramifications that would flow from a hardened mis-impression.

“We can take this up tomorrow morning at deputies.”

http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/14/cnn-exclusive-white-house-email-contradicts-benghazi-leak

The e-mail suggests that the White House was trying to inform honestly while protecting the investigation being conducted by the FBI. It also hints at interests of the State Department. My guess is that those State Dept. interests may have involved getting cooperation inside Libya in order to find those who committed the act of terror in Benghazi.

The e-mail confirms precisely what I have suspected all along. The only secrets that were withheld from the American public on this one concerned facts we did not need to know or facts that were highly classified because publicizing them would have interfered with the ongoing investigations.

The Republicans are so aggressive about protecting national security -- until a real national security threat arises, and then they want to use the threat (to anyone but a person with a menial IQ like Issa and the folks at Fox News) for their own propaganda purposes and to embarrass the Obama administration when the Obama administration is really trying to balance providing information with wise foreign and security policy.

A recent poll on Republicans showing that 40% do not know where Benghazi is says it all. Ignorance by choice.

[Jacob1983]

Move the fuck on. Give up. This shit is just like Bush doing all the crap he did in Iraq and Gitmo as president. It's probably illegal but nothing is going to happen. Obama supporters and lovers won't let it happen just like Bush lovers and supporters didn't let it happen. Obama is Bush. We get it. No one cares.

[Nbadan]

Well, its not really the same because Obama did nothing wrong and Bush had his group of lawyers legally justify international torture and rendition...

[Jacob1983]

Obama has done nothing wrong? People said the same thing when Bush did it. It's pointless to argue. And it's pointless to discuss this shit. Presidents don't go to jail. President aren't held accountable for the shit that they do. If they fuck up America, no one holds them accountable. The politicians that destroyed the economy haven't faced any type of punishment or justice. In American politics, there are no consequences for your actions. But seriously, nothing is going to happen or change. Obama isn't going to resign or get impeached. He definitely isn't going to be charged with anything.

[Nbadan]

People said the same thing when Bush did it. It's pointless to argue.

Not arguing...just pointing out that it's ....not the same..

[Jacob1983]

It is the same but you're a koolaid drinker so I'm basically talking to a wall. Obama has killed more people including innocent people with drone attacks than Bush did yet no cares and Obama is still cool and hip. Obama still has not closed Gitmo but he's still cool and hip. Obama was against the troop surge in Iraq and the war in Iraq but he loved the troop surge in Afghanistan and the war over there. Obama and his buddy Biden still support the Patriot Act even though they're so-called liberals. Obama lovers and supporters, are you okay with this shit? I have more respect for Obama koolaid drinkers that admit they know Obama sucks or that he does illegal shit than those who think Obama is awesome and a god.

[Nbadan]

Obama has killed more people including innocent people with drone attacks than Bush did yet no cares and Obama is still cool and hip

Nobody is cool and hip with Obama's drone attacks, but we are in a war on Terror...and we can either fight that war with boots on the ground or with drones in the air....the latter, while not perfect is preferable....quit your self righteous belly aching...innocent people die in wars...

[Nbadan]

Obama still has not closed Gitmo but he's still cool and hip

Oh please.....Gitmo would be closed if it wasn't for GOP obstructionism...besides...it's not the hell hole of the Bush Administration..

[Jacob1983]

I only call out Obama because he claims to be a liberal. Liberals don't support drone attacks, Gitmo, warrantless wiretaps and surveillance, endless wars that don't go anywhere, etc... Wait a minute. When a Republican president does those things, they are against it. When a liberal president does it, they support it blindly. I mean, what happened to the anti-war left movement? What happened to the fuckers that camped out at Bush's ranch in Crawford?

[Nbadan]

I only call out Obama because he claims to be a liberal. Liberals don't support drone attacks, Gitmo, warrantless wiretaps and surveillance, endless wars that don't go anywhere, etc... Wait a minute.

I see the problem here....some "liberals' don't conform to your distorted bias and your having trouble digesting it...

[Jacob1983]

True liberals don't support most of the shit that President Obama supports. Thank you. Anyways, you're drinking the koolaid so I'm done with you in this thread. Peace.

[RandomGuy]

Oh please.....Gitmo would be closed if it wasn't for GOP obstructionism...besides...it's not the hell hole of the Bush Administration..

Very true.

The solutions we needed to close Gitmo were roundly rejected by Congress, i.e. Republicans in the house.

Pretty easy to lay that at their feet.

[RandomGuy]

I only call out Obama because he claims to be a liberal. Liberals don't support drone attacks, Gitmo, warrantless wiretaps and surveillance, endless wars that don't go anywhere, etc... Wait a minute. When a Republican president does those things, they are against it. When a liberal president does it, they support it blindly. I mean, what happened to the anti-war left movement? What happened to the fuckers that camped out at Bush's ranch in Crawford?

You do realize that Obama ended our large-scale presence in Iraq, right?

You do realize that Obama has scheduled a similar draw down for Afghanistan?


Riddle me this:

Why would someone who wants an end to those wars protest a president who ended the wars they dislike?

[TeyshaBlue]

Very true.

The solutions we needed to close Gitmo were roundly rejected by Congress, i.e. Republicans in the house.

Pretty easy to lay that at their feet.

Except, for 2009 Democrats on Capitol Hill Rebel Against President Obama's Guantanamo Bay Plan http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=7633754&page=1#.UZOcq6Ip98E

2011 Don’t Blame Obama: Only 6 Democratic Senators Voted To Fund Closing GITMOhttp://www.politicususa.com/dont-blame-obama-only-6-democratic-senators-voted-to-fund-closing-gitmo.html

Regrettably, they've pretty much been lockstep with the GOP on this issue.

But yeah, It's totally on the republicans.

[SA210]

You do realize that Obama ended our large-scale presence in Iraq, right?

You do realize that Obama has scheduled a similar draw down for Afghanistan?


Riddle me this:

Why would someone who wants an end to those wars protest a president who ended the wars they dislike?


OBAMA FACT SHEET: http://stpeteforpeace.org/obama.html (http://stpeteforpeace.org/obama.html)


https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/303639_577618372264655_1676332577_n.jpg





Very true.

The solutions we needed to close Gitmo were roundly rejected by Congress, i.e. Republicans in the house.

Pretty easy to lay that at their feet.





"In his press conference Tuesday, President Obama repeated that he wanted to shut Guantanamo Bay but blamed Congress for stopping him. "They would not let us close it," he said. But that's wrong. President Obama can lawfully release the detainees if he wants to. Congress has made it difficult, but not impossible. Whatever he's saying, the president does not want to close the detention center—at least not yet."*

Obama has repeatedly said he wants to close Guantanamo, but he took no action. Now, are people who previously opposed the inhumane treatment inside changing their tune because it's what Obama "wants?" Why won't he close it and let the detainees who have been CLEARED out of Gitmo's walls? Cenk Uygur breaks it down.


TYT News: Is Guantanamo Obama's Greatest Disgrace?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsQdmeYUyxg

[CosmicCowboy]

You do realize that Obama ended our large-scale presence in Iraq, right?

You do realize that Obama has scheduled a similar draw down for Afghanistan?


Riddle me this:

Why would someone who wants an end to those wars protest a president who ended the wars they dislike?

:lmao

He didn't end the war in Iraq. He just turned it over to the CIA and State Department and mercenaries instead of using US combat troops.

[ChumpDumper]

:lmao

He didn't end the war in Iraq. He just turned it over to the CIA and State Department and mercenaries instead of using US combat troops.How many of those have died since the transition?

[CosmicCowboy]

How many of those have died since the transition?

http://blogs.vso.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Moving-the-goalposts-300x2402.jpg

[ChumpDumper]

I accept your whining as an admission that the number is close to zero.

OK, how do you say they are fighting the war in the same manner as the US troops?

[RandomGuy]

:lmao

He didn't end the war in Iraq. He just turned it over to the CIA and State Department and mercenaries instead of using US combat troops.

:wow

How many troops does the State Department have on the ground there, and who is their commander?

[RandomGuy]

[regurgitation]

Get to that vomitous mass later.

[TeyshaBlue]

:wow

How many troops does the State Department have on the ground there, and who is their commander?

Lots. And I am their commander.

Also, I'm Batman.

[SA210]

:cry I was just proven wrong :cry

[SA210]

http://blogs.vso.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Moving-the-goalposts-300x2402.jpg


:rollin

[RandomGuy]

Except, for 2009 Democrats on Capitol Hill Rebel Against President Obama's Guantanamo Bay Plan http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=7633754&page=1#.UZOcq6Ip98E

2011 Don’t Blame Obama: Only 6 Democratic Senators Voted To Fund Closing GITMOhttp://www.politicususa.com/dont-blame-obama-only-6-democratic-senators-voted-to-fund-closing-gitmo.html

Regrettably, they've pretty much been lockstep with the GOP on this issue.

But yeah, It's totally on the republicans.

Fair enough I stand corrected.

Better source for data:

http://jurist.org/paperchase/2009/06/house-denies-guantanamo-closure-funds.php

Gives links to bills, roll call votes, et al.

Democrats in Congress have repeatedly called for a detailed plan that has not been forthcoming.

Republicans just don't want it closed, period, plan or no.

At this point, even if Obama has a plan in hand, no vote would make it out of the House.

(edit)
Also, I found a good white paper on it:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R40754.pdf

[RandomGuy]

[ha ha, i'm right and you're wrong, nanny nanny boo boo!]

Whatever you say, kid. (rolls eyes)

Honestly, I just don't care about most of the copy and paste shit you say. You are too stupid to really argue with, so it is generally a waste of time.

Even so, occasionally you bring up some valid points that are mildly worth addressing, as your spammed picture/video links were. As I have said on more than one occasion, I even agree with some of it.

Now you can either display a modicum of maturity and wait a bit, or continue your junior high school strutting, in which case, you can fuck off.

Your call, mature patience, or childish strutting. I don't care either way.

[ChumpDumper]

SA210 would have impeached JFK.

[SA210]

Whatever you say, kid. (rolls eyes)

Honestly, I just don't care about most of the copy and paste shit you say. You are too stupid to really argue with, so it is generally a waste of time.

Even so, occasionally you bring up some valid points that are mildly worth addressing, as your spammed picture/video links were. As I have said on more than one occasion, I even agree with some of it.

Now you can either display a modicum of maturity and wait a bit, or continue your junior high school strutting, in which case, you can fuck off.

Your call, mature patience, or childish strutting. I don't care either way.


Wow, in the past you have always been quick to call names, jump the gun bc you didn't like the FACTS I posted. But yea, go ahead. Do the mature thing. :tu

[George Gervin's Afro]

Heads of Benghazi review board say they'll testify before Congress after criticism
Published May 14, 2013
Associated Press

WASHINGTON – The leaders of the panel that independently reviewed last year's deadly attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, said Tuesday they were prepared to testify publicly before Congress to counter what they consider unfounded criticism of their work.

In a letter to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, veteran diplomat Thomas Pickering said he and former Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen would answer any questions lawmakers have. Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., chairman of the panel, is pressing for the two men to agree to an interview with staff investigators prior to a public hearing.

The work of the Accountability Review Board is the latest focus of a broader Republican inquest into their claims that the Obama administration misled Congress and the American people after the Sept. 11, 2012, attack that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.

The blistering report released in December by Pickering, Mullen and three other reviewers found that "systematic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels" of the State Department meant security was "inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place."

Pickering, however, noted how recently "some have called into question the integrity of the board and its work."

"We believe that such criticisms are unfounded and, if left unaddressed, undermine the essential work that the board has done," he wrote. "It is therefore important that we be afforded the opportunity to appear at a public hearing before the committee and answer directly questions regarding the board's procedures, findings and recommendations."

Republicans believe the report was flawed, and they want to know why top officials like Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton weren't interviewed. The panel absolved Clinton of any wrongdoing, faulting lower level State Department officials. Four were given paid suspensions.

On Monday, Issa asked Pickering and Mullen to meet privately with committee staff investigators to answer questions about their review. Democrats countered that if lawmakers wanted to talk to them, Issa should hold a full open hearing.

Pickering said the board "conducted a thorough review and produced a report that included detailed findings and frank and often highly critical assessments." It issued 29 recommendations for improving security at diplomatic facilities worldwide, and Pickering insisted that the board "fulfilled its role in identifying the lessons that must be learned and acted upon from Benghazi."

"We stand behind the board's report and look forward to discussing it in a public hearing," he wrote.

Frederick Hill, a spokesman for the committee, said late Tuesday that the panel was following up with Pickering and the State Department to determine whether he would appear voluntarily for an interview with committee staff investigators. Hill noted that Issa and Pickering appeared on a Sunday talk show together two days ago, and said the former diplomat had told the committee chairman that he would voluntarily submit to an interview.

"The committee is giving him a full opportunity to voluntarily follow through on his commitment," Hill said.

Issa, in his letter on Monday to Pickering and Mullen, had said that following the private interview, the committee would work with the report's authors on a date for a public hearing.



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/14/heads-benghazi-review-board-say-theyll-testify-before-congress-after-criticism/?test=latestnews#ixzz2TNHfg1QA

Why have the meeting? Let them go in front of the committee and answer the charges that were leveled during the hearing. I get the impression that Issa wants to know what they are going to say before a public hearing. He can't risk his committee looking like partisan hacks nor allow anything to get out into the public that exonerates Clinton... I guess it's smart to have the private meeting..

[SA210]

SA210 would have impeached JFK.

Nice lie and spin attempt. JFK learned from his mistake and even stopped a terrorist attack on US Citizens by its own government (Operation Northwoods), and he had more backbone than all Presidents combined after him, including your fraudulent Messiah. Your messiah is just a flat out psychopathic neo-con child murderer, killer of civil liberties and Wall Street sellout;

JFK gave up his entire Presidential salary to charity, and even gave more on top of that :tu

lol


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEEId0UszmQ

[ChumpDumper]

Nice lie and spin attempt. JFK learned from his mistakeTo what mistake are you referring?

[RandomGuy]

Wow, in the past you have always been quick to call names, jump the gun bc you didn't like the FACTS I posted. But yea, go ahead. Do the mature thing. :tu

Fair enough, I did call you stupid, and that was unnecessary, even if true.

That said, I will take "you didn't like the FACTS I posted" as more strutting, and further, proving my point about you being stupid.



"you bring up some valid points that are mildly worth addressing, as your spammed picture/video links were. As I have said on more than one occasion, I even agree with some of it."
For most people who have two brain cells to rub together, you twit, that was actually an agreement.

Since you have pretty much proven you lack the reading comprehension to even read short posts with any understanding, and have doubled down on the childish strutting, you can fuck off.

If it is one thing dealing with the like of Cosmored and mouse has taught me it is how to identify Massive Wastes of Time when I see them.

[SA210]

Fair enough, I did call you stupid, and that was unnecessary, even if true.

That said, I will take "you didn't like the FACTS I posted" as more strutting, and further, proving my point about you being stupid.


For most people who have two brain cells to rub together, you twit, that was actually an agreement.

Since you have pretty much proven you lack the reading comprehension to even read short posts with any understanding, and have doubled down on the childish strutting, you can fuck off.

If it is one thing dealing with the like of Cosmored and mouse has taught me it is how to identify Massive Wastes of Time when I see them.


You are still acting like a child, you began that way and you still are. All I did was post facts about Obama and you started insulting like a kid. I can read just fine. When you read the facts I post, it makes you angry, hence your constant insults, whether you agree in part or not. Now back to what we were discussing, Obama is a fraud, a war criminal and Wall Street hack and you should support his impeachment. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together would know this. I am all for civil discussion and have always been about that, but it's funny coming from twits who have always constantly tried insulting me bc they hate that I tell the truth about a corrupt Democrat the same as I did a corrupt Republican when Bush was in office.

4-5 years ago when I was hard on Bush, you hypocrites LOVED what I was saying and backed me ALL THE TIME in this forum. How the tables have turned, all because I remained consistent, and now it's YOUR guy, so you don't like it. And after all the childish trolling and insults..now the trolls want civil discussion/posts? (even though that's what I originally did) I'll believe it when I actually see it. (Awaits further insults or explanations)

[Winehole23]

hard on Bush in 2008-9? what courage.

[SA210]

hard on Bush in 2008-9? what courage.

No, moron. His entire fraudulent Presidency if you actually knew the facts of my posting history back then.

I was saying that's the last time the fake liberals of the board liked what I was saying because it was about the other guy. Your messiah took office after that and all of a sudden you kids didn't wanna play nomore :lol. Ah chucks..Whodathunkit. Now go ahead, spin.


Fake liberals..what courage. lol

[Winehole23]

His entire fraudulent Presidency if you actually knew the facts of my posting history back then.pity I don't. I been missing out.

[SA210]

pity I don't. I been missing out.

You speak about me without having your facts about it? No surprise there.

[ChumpDumper]

lol facts

t-shirt podcast

[TeyshaBlue]

"4-5 years ago when I was hard on Bush,"
"hard on Bush in 2008-9? "

Seems factual enough.

[SA210]

:cry Yup, I'm a butthurt troll. I follow SA210 and others around everywhere and I sabotage threads AND I GO OFF TOPIC and then blame others for it!!, that's a sure sign of butthurt alright, me posting again further proves it, watch.. :cry

[SA210]

"4-5 years ago when I was hard on Bush,"
"hard on Bush in 2008-9? "

Seems factual enough.

Not really, that's not my only posting history on Bush, and I explained in the next post, but stay butthurt :tu

[ChumpDumper]

lol SA210 trying to stifle differing opinions like Stalin.

Watch, he'll just make it about me again. He can't even stay on his own topic.

[SA210]

:cry Yup, I'm a butthurt troll. I follow SA210 and others around everywhere and I sabotage threads AND I GO OFF TOPIC and then blame others for it!!, that's a sure sign of butthurt alright, me posting again further proves it, watch.. :cry

[Winehole23]

You speak about me without having your facts about it? No surprise there.I assumed your self-description was accurate. my bad.

[ChumpDumper]

Yup, SA210 is will never actually discuss Benghazi. I am much more interesting to him.

[SA210]

Yup, SA210 talked facts about Benghazi and I hated it. I am much more interested in him.

:tu I know Mrs. 75,000

[ChumpDumper]

Yup, SA210 posted a couple of YouTubes and memes and now can only talk about me.

No Benghazi discussion.

[Winehole23]

copy and pasting memes and youtubes, interminable flame wars, touchdown dances and hyper-reliance on smilies. is about all there is to SA210.

[TeyshaBlue]

Not really, that's not my only posting history on Bush, and I explained in the next post, but stay butthurt :tu

Then don't throw 4-5 years out there if you don't want it considered. But, stay butthurt. :tu

[ChumpDumper]

Still in my top ten admirers tbh.

Recent Visitors
The last 10 visitor(s) to this page were:

Austin_Toros,
Blake,
Creepn,
DUNCANownsKOBE,
moisaenz,
SA210,
spurraider21,
superman78221,
Woo Bum-kon,
xtremesteven33

[SA210]

:cry Yup I'm butthurt and me and my fake liberal friends will continue to make this about SA210, watch....

[ChumpDumper]

Sorry, you made this about me.

Why did you visit my profile?

[SA210]

Still in my top ten admirers tbh.

Recent Visitors
The last 10 visitor(s) to this page were:

Austin_Toros,
Blake,
Creepn,
DUNCANownsKOBE,
moisaenz,
SA210,
spurraider21,
superman78221,
Woo Bum-kon,
xtremesteven33


I had to "quote" your pathetic posts per day average when you lied, Mrs. Chunky 75,000. :lmao However, not surprised to see Blake on there, for entirely different reasons.

:lol chump gets desperate and wrong, again.

lol chump still butthurt and still making it about me, and won't discuss Benghazi

[ChumpDumper]

I had to "quote" your pathetic posts per day average when you lied, Mrs. Chunky 75,000. :lmao However, not surprised to see Blake on there, for entirely different reasons.

:lol chump gets desperate and wrong, again.

lol chump still butthurt and still making it about me, and won't discuss BenghaziSo you had to conduct research on me so you could talk about me in a thread.

Thanks for admitting it's all about me. I guess you'll do anything to not discuss Benghazi at this point.

[SA210]

:cry I'll lie and deflect that SA210 told the truth about us fake liberals, that we were OK with him when he bashed Bush, but it ended when he told the truth about war criminal Obama:cry

[ChumpDumper]

Whatever he can do to not discuss Benghazi.

[TeyshaBlue]

Changing the quote and thinking that's cute. Never gets old!

[TeyshaBlue]

lol @ fake liberal. Fucking moron.

[TeyshaBlue]

pointing out your inability to posit a cogent, original thought does not make one a fake liberal.

[Winehole23]

more flames, smilies and sock puppetry in 5...4...3...2...

[SA210]

:cry So I had to actually make a thread about SA210 with his name in the title, where SA210 owned me royally for the internet addict I am, and that's why I have never been the same since. In fact I am so hurt over how that blew up in my face, that I will follow SA210 around everywhere and I will even refuse to talk about Bengazi in this thread to do it! Watch, I have more to say to make this more about SA210...:cry

[Winehole23]

right on cue

[TeyshaBlue]

Let me save you some time. Just use this.

:cry____________________________:cry


no need to thank me. I'm a giver.

[ChumpDumper]

Yeah, you never discussed 9/11 either, SA210. You melted down and never stopped.

I OTOH, discuss all topics rather freely. I'm not afraid like you are.

[TeyshaBlue]

chicken liver.

[SA210]

My favorite word is cogent. I use it all the time

:lmao

[TeyshaBlue]

:cry__________________________:cry

[ChumpDumper]

To say nothing of poor Lupe.

[SA210]

Mission accomplished by facts :tu the butthurt angry trolls revved up and angry. Circle jerk angry lol

[ChumpDumper]

Well, your mission certainly wasn't discussing Benghazi. :tu

[SA210]

Mission accomplished by facts :tu the butthurt angry trolls revved up and angry. Circle jerk angry lol

[ChumpDumper]

Well, your mission certainly wasn't discussing Benghazi. :tu

[TeyshaBlue]

:cry________________________:cry
:cry________________________:cry
:cry________________________:cry

[RandomGuy]

You are still acting like a child, you began that way and you still are. All I did was post facts about Obama and you started insulting like a kid. I can read just fine. When you read the facts I post, it makes you angry, hence your constant insults, whether you agree in part or not. Now back to what we were discussing, Obama is a fraud, a war criminal and Wall Street hack and you should support his impeachment. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together would know this. I am all for civil discussion and have always been about that, but it's funny coming from twits who have always constantly tried insulting me bc they hate that I tell the truth about a corrupt Democrat the same as I did a corrupt Republican when Bush was in office.

4-5 years ago when I was hard on Bush, you hypocrites LOVED what I was saying and backed me ALL THE TIME in this forum. How the tables have turned, all because I remained consistent, and now it's YOUR guy, so you don't like it. And after all the childish trolling and insults..now the trolls want civil discussion/posts? (even though that's what I originally did) I'll believe it when I actually see it. (Awaits further insults or explanations)

That is the narrative you have built in you mind, and nothing I could possibly say would dissuade you of it.

For this reason, even when I might be agreeing with you on something, you put on your Noble Crusader For Truth hat and go in guns blazing.

Your ego and self esteem is all tied up on how much smarter and more hip you are than everybody else because you, and you alone, have glommed on to the Truth According to Infowars.

I can't, and won't, argue with that.

You will have to rescue yourself, kid. You want yourself to be the hero in this narrative, and that is far to psychologically appealing to give up willingly even if shown how you are wrong.

[BobaFett1]

Looks like Boba has run away from his own thread.

No Boba has to go to work some days. I love how you libs changed story on this 12 times.:lol

[boutons_deux]

Repugs had these emails months ago, and said nothing.

Because this Repug/Fox fabricated Benghazi scandal is getting no traction with the vast majority of Americans, they Repugs/Fox now trump these months-old emails as scandal-worthing, proving that .... ???? a document went through several revison levels?? :lol

[BobaFett1]

Repugs had these emails months ago, and said nothing.

Because this Repug/Fox fabricated Benghazi scandal is getting no traction with the vast majority of Americans, they Repugs/Fox now trump these months-old emails as scandal-worthing, proving that .... ???? a document went through several revison levels?? :lol

:lol Obama hiding truth on Benghazi
:lol DOJ wire tapping ap
:lol IRS being shady on tea party
:lol boutons_deux a euro socialist.
:lol Racheal Madoxx homer

[RandomGuy]

."The fact that there are inputs is always the case in a process like this. But the only edits made by anyone here at the White House were stylistic and non-substantive. They corrected the description of the building or the facility in Benghazi from 'consulate' to 'diplomatic facility' and the like," he said.
State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell also said Rice's comments were based on the intelligence community's "best assessment that there was not any evidence of months-long pre-planning or pre-meditation, which remains their assessment."


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/10/benghazi-talking-points-reportedly-revised-12-times-official-concerned-would/#ixzz2Sunr7jml


OK, are intelligence assessments often revised before release?

Yes or no -- and back up your answer with linked explanations.


:lol

:lmao

That isn't really an answer. I will ask because it seems pretty important to the OP.


OK, are intelligence assessments often revised before release?
Yes or no -- and back up your answer with linked explanations.

2nd time this is asked.

[BobaFett1]

That isn't really an answer. I will ask because it seems pretty important to the OP.


OK, are intelligence assessments often revised before release?
Yes or no -- and back up your answer with linked explanations.

2nd time this is asked.

You do not change a story 12 times.:lol

[George Gervin's Afro]

First on CNN: Pickering, Mullen challenge Issa to let them testify in public
By CNN's Jake Tapper and Alison Harding

In a letter to Rep. Darrell Issa exclusively obtained by CNN, the co-chairmen behind an independent review of September's deadly attack in Benghazi, Libya, expressed irritation over the House Oversight Committee chairman's portrayal of their work and requested he call a public hearing at which they can testify.

"The public deserves to hear your questions and our answers," wrote former Ambassador Thomas Pickering and former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen, co-chairmen of the Accountability Review Board that was convened to investigate the September 11th attack.

READ THE LETTER HERE

Eight months after their report cited "systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies" at the State Department," Issa continues to be a leading critic of the accountability board, calling its review "a failure" and asking for further investigations into the Obama administration's response during the attack and its aftermath.

The dispute between Issa and the co-chairmen came to a head after neither Pickering nor Mullen attended a May 8 House Oversight Committee hearing on the attacks, sparking a heated back and forth about who was invited and when. The rhetoric intensified Sunday during a highly contentious joint appearance with Issa and Pickering on NBC's "Meet the Press" in which Issa maintained the two "refused to come before our committee." Pickering insisted that he was not invited despite expressing a willingness to testify.


"Chairman Issa sent word back that he might want to take me up some time in the future" Pickering said.

Issa also suggested on the program that Pickering and Mullen meet with the committee behind closed doors so as not to create "some sort of stage show." But the two assert in their letter that a public hearing is a "more appropriate forum" and accuse Issa of changing his "position on the terms of our appearance."

"Having taken liberal license to call into question the Board's work, it is surprising that you now maintain that members of the committee need a closed-door proceeding before being able to ask "informed questions" at a public hearing," they write in the letter.
Pickering and Mullen assert that since they are not witnesses, but rather officials asked to serve on a review board, they should be permitted to testify in public.

"While we understand and respect that your committee has the authority and responsibility to review the Benghazi attacks, we ask that you similarly understand and respect that the Accountability Review Board bore its own authority and responsibility to review Benghazi," they write.

"What the Committee is now proposing is highly unusual in the context of senior officials who are not fact witnesses but instead are reporting their own independent review."

Last year’s attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.

Pickering and Mullen have proposed May 28 or June 3 for a public hearing.


Poor Issa.. now what?

[George Gervin's Afro]

You do not change a story 12 times.:lol

how many times is appropriate?

[Winehole23]

You do not change a story 12 times.:lolWhy not? Is that not the usual procedure?

[RandomGuy]

."The fact that there are inputs is always the case in a process like this. But the only edits made by anyone here at the White House were stylistic and non-substantive. They corrected the description of the building or the facility in Benghazi from 'consulate' to 'diplomatic facility' and the like," he said.
State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell also said Rice's comments were based on the intelligence community's "best assessment that there was not any evidence of months-long pre-planning or pre-meditation, which remains their assessment."


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/10/benghazi-talking-points-reportedly-revised-12-times-official-concerned-would/#ixzz2Sunr7jml


OK, are intelligence assessments often revised before release?

Yes or no -- and back up your answer with linked explanations.


:lol

:lmao


That isn't really an answer. I will ask because it seems pretty important to the OP.


OK, are intelligence assessments often revised before release?
Yes or no -- and back up your answer with linked explanations.

2nd time this is asked.


You do not change a story 12 times.:lol

That isn't really an answer to that question.

Simple yes or no is all that is required.

3rd time:
OK, are intelligence assessments often revised before release?
Please back up your answer with linked explanations, so we can see for ourselves if your answer holds up.

[SA210]

That is the narrative you have built in you mind, and nothing I could possibly say would dissuade you of it.

For this reason, even when I might be agreeing with you on something, you put on your Noble Crusader For Truth hat and go in guns blazing.

Your ego and self esteem is all tied up on how much smarter and more hip you are than everybody else because you, and you alone, have glommed on to the Truth According to Infowars.

I can't, and won't, argue with that.

You will have to rescue yourself, kid. You want yourself to be the hero in this narrative, and that is far to psychologically appealing to give up willingly even if shown how you are wrong.

Yea, you actually said nothing here. You lied or wrongly assumed many things, especially about me and infowars??? lol All in all you spun and deflected the truth of what I was saying. When Bush was in office and I criticized him, YOU supported what I said, then it all changed when I told the truth about your messiah. End of story. Make all the accusations and spin all you want, but that's the truth about the fake liberals on this board.

[2centsworth]

Time Magazine has a good summary and copies of the edits. No smoking gun, but the specific edits like changing the word attack to demonstration bugs me. Plus, the narrative the white house ran with like the youtube video story reeks of deception. Is this impeachable or on par with Watergate, absolutely not imo. However, it's more reason why I can't stand politics.

http://swampland.time.com/2013/05/16/timeline-the-benghazi-emails/

[RandomGuy]

Yea, you actually said nothing here. You lied or wrongly assumed many things, especially about me and infowars??? lol All in all you spun and deflected the truth of what I was saying. When Bush was in office and I criticized him, YOU supported what I said, then it all changed when I told the truth about your messiah. End of story. Make all the accusations and spin all you want, but that's the truth about the fake liberals on this board.

It's obvious you aren't reading what I post, and don't really care what I actually think. Since you seem to prefer the narrative in your tiny head to reality... fuck off. Last time I bother responding to you, Waste.

[RandomGuy]

For the record:

I really don't like Obama. I think all tolled, he is a poor president.

The only thing he has going for him is that he is vastly better than the asswipes the GOP tried to put forth for the last two elections, but that isn't saying much.

[ChumpDumper]

Yea, you actually said nothing here. You lied or wrongly assumed many things, especially about me and infowars??? lol All in all you spun and deflected the truth of what I was saying. When Bush was in office and I criticized him, YOU supported what I said, then it all changed when I told the truth about your messiah. End of story. Make all the accusations and spin all you want, but that's the truth about the fake liberals on this board.Actually people agree with many things you say politically, just not all.

Plus, you're an asshole.

[2centsworth]

For the record:

I really don't like Obama. I think all tolled, he is a poor president.

The only thing he has going for him is that he is vastly better than the asswipes the GOP tried to put forth for the last two elections, but that isn't saying much.

Is there anyone in the GOP for whom you would vote?

[SA210]

It's obvious you aren't reading what I post, and don't really care what I actually think. Since you seem to prefer the narrative in your tiny head to reality... fuck off. Last time I bother responding to you, Waste.

Obviously you continue to spin. Thanks for not responding anymore. You've been wrong enough.

[SA210]

Actually people agree with many things you say politically, just not all.

Plus, you're an asshole.

lol chumps meltdown continues

[SA210]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/21299_388028154643964_981210151_n.jpg

[ChumpDumper]

lol chumps meltdown continueslol you can't handle the fact I just posted

[SA210]

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/935750_576175672417367_1488896527_n.jpg

[ChumpDumper]

lol memes

[boutons_deux]

It would help the GOP's political cause if it didn't ratchet up to DEFCON 1 at every Obama White House mishap that lurches into its sights.

Benghazi is the "most egregious coverup in American history" (in the words of Senator James Inhofe, R-Oklahoma (http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/inhofe-suggests-obama-may-be-impeached-over-benghazi)), but if every other story is Watergate, too, then Inhofe and the rest become the Boys Who Cried Wolf.

With all due respect to George Will, who now refers to the Obama "regime" in his column and is citing Watergate articles of impeachment to indict the president (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-will-irs-scandal-carries-echoes-of-watergate/2013/05/13/78f03660-bbf1-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_story.html), the IRS scandal only becomes Watergate if it turns out that the targeting of tea-party groups was under White House orders or direction.

There is no evidence of this.

Indeed, the IRS commissioner in charge at the time this happened was Douglas Shulman, a Bush appointee who testified before a House oversight committee (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/irs-apologizes-targeting-tea-party-groups) in March 2012 that there had been "absolutely no targeting" of conservative groups.

Why would a Republican official be part of an Obama cover-up?

The same question must be asked about the State Department spinmeister and Cheney factotum Victoria Nuland, whose fingerprints are all over the Susan Rice "talking points" at the heart of that "most egregious coverup in American history."

The conspiracy plot thickens - or does it thin?

Meanwhile, a bigger scandal hovers over all of this: the IRS's granting of tax breaks to blatantly partisan political "public welfare" groups whether they be affiliated with the tea party, Karl Rove (Crossroads GPS), the Obama administration (Priorities USA), or fat-cat third-party movements (Americans Elect).

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/17452-focus-the-irs-benghazi-and-the-republicans-who-cried-wolf

I read a comment that said the Repugs are intimidating the IRS NEVER to think about vetting 501(4)c "social welfare" frauds.

[BobaFett1]

It would help the GOP's political cause if it didn't ratchet up to DEFCON 1 at every Obama White House mishap that lurches into its sights.

Benghazi is the "most egregious coverup in American history" (in the words of Senator James Inhofe, R-Oklahoma (http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/inhofe-suggests-obama-may-be-impeached-over-benghazi)), but if every other story is Watergate, too, then Inhofe and the rest become the Boys Who Cried Wolf.

With all due respect to George Will, who now refers to the Obama "regime" in his column and is citing Watergate articles of impeachment to indict the president (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-will-irs-scandal-carries-echoes-of-watergate/2013/05/13/78f03660-bbf1-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_story.html), the IRS scandal only becomes Watergate if it turns out that the targeting of tea-party groups was under White House orders or direction.

There is no evidence of this.

Indeed, the IRS commissioner in charge at the time this happened was Douglas Shulman, a Bush appointee who testified before a House oversight committee (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/irs-apologizes-targeting-tea-party-groups) in March 2012 that there had been "absolutely no targeting" of conservative groups.

Why would a Republican official be part of an Obama cover-up?

The same question must be asked about the State Department spinmeister and Cheney factotum Victoria Nuland, whose fingerprints are all over the Susan Rice "talking points" at the heart of that "most egregious coverup in American history."

The conspiracy plot thickens - or does it thin?

Meanwhile, a bigger scandal hovers over all of this: the IRS's granting of tax breaks to blatantly partisan political "public welfare" groups whether they be affiliated with the tea party, Karl Rove (Crossroads GPS), the Obama administration (Priorities USA), or fat-cat third-party movements (Americans Elect).

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/17452-focus-the-irs-benghazi-and-the-republicans-who-cried-wolf

I read a comment that said the Repugs are intimidating the IRS NEVER to think about vetting 501(4)c "social welfare" frauds.

:lol Boutons

[Winehole23]

CBS essentially accuses Republicans of doing some editing of their own:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57584947/wh-benghazi-emails-have-different-quotes-than-earlier-reported/

[Winehole23]

The larger problem with the scandal culture in D.C. is that, because each example of government wrongdoing quickly morphs into a partisan effort to attack the White House (the same was true when a Republican was President), the actual remedies for the problems uncovered become almost beside the point. A U.S. congressman will probably go farther in his party hierarchy by roughing up Obama than he will by helping to pass legislation to ensure that all diplomatic posts have adequate security. Likewise, the I.R.S. abuses suggest the need for both major tax reform and changes to campaign-finance laws, while a future dragnet of news media phone records could be prevented if a strong federal shield law were in place. Don’t hold your breath waiting for any of these policy changes.http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/05/peak-scandal.html

[Winehole23]

Paul Waldman on the semantic tussle over "terrorism" vs. "act of terror":


I am hereby declaring 99 Pinocchios on Barack Obama, all the people who work for him, everyone in the Republican party, and most everyone in the press who has reported on Benghazi.

This is about what has to be one of the most inane disagreements in the history of American politics, the argument about whether Obama called the Benghazi attack an "act of terror" or a "terrorist attack." Incredibly, people are still bickering over this. The other day Darrell Issa expressed (http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/05/13/2002871/issa-obama-covered-up-benghazi-terrorism-by-calling-it-an-act-of-terror/) his outrage that Obama had, in his diabolical attempt to cover up the incident, used the phrase "act of terror," which, let's be honest, is almost like saying, "Way to go, al Qaeda!", instead of using the far, far, far more condemnatory phrase "terrorist attack." It's like the difference between saying "steaming pile of bullshit" when you ought to say "steaming bullshit pile"—anyone who can't tell the difference between the two obviously can't be trusted to run the country. Then the ordinarily reasonable Glenn Kessler, The Washington Post's fact-checker, sternly judged (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-claim-he-called-benghazi-an-act-of-terrorism/2013/05/13/7b65b83e-bc14-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_blog.html) Obama to be guilty of a Four Pinnochio whopper, because at his last press conference he said, "The day after it happened, I acknowledged that this was an act of terrorism," when in fact he didn't say "act of terrorism but just "act of terror." Facts? Checked.

But here's what nobody seems to get: Benghazi was not a terrorist act. Or an act of terror. Or an act of terrorism.

Before my Republican friends start getting red in the face, that doesn't mean it wasn't awful. Many awful things are not terrorism. Pearl Harbor wasn't terrorism. Jeffrey Dahmer's murders weren't terrorism. Adam Sandler's Jack and Jill wasn't terrorism. Terrorism is something quite specific: the intentional killing of civilians in order to achieve a political end. It's the "civilian" part that makes it terrorism and not something else. Perhaps some conservatives think that any violent action committed by Muslims is terrorism, but it isn't.

As it happens, there's a nice succinct definition of terrorism in U.S. law, section 2656f(d) of Title 22 of the United States Code, which reads (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/65464.pdf), "the term 'terrorism' means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents."

So why wasn't Benghazi terrorism? Because the people targeted weren't civilians. As The Wall Street Journal has reported (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204712904578092853621061838.html), "The U.S. effort in Benghazi was at its heart a CIA operation, according to officials briefed on the intelligence. Of the more than 30 American officials evacuated from Benghazi following the deadly assault, only seven worked for the State Department. Nearly all the rest worked for the CIA, under diplomatic cover, which was a principal purpose of the consulate, these officials said." CIA officials are not civilians. That doesn't make their deaths any less tragic or painful for their families, but it's the truth. Nor is a CIA outpost a civilian target.http://prospect.org/article/benghazi-was-neither-terrorist-attack-nor-act-terror

[TeyshaBlue]

Adam Sandler's Jack and Jill was a war crime.

[George Gervin's Afro]

CBS essentially accuses Republicans of doing some editing of their own:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57584947/wh-benghazi-emails-have-different-quotes-than-earlier-reported/

They just want to get to the truth. This is not a political witch hunt...

[Winehole23]

Adam Sandler's Jack and Jill was a war crime.Adam Sandler's movies by and large should be considered crimes against humanity

[The Reckoning]

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/935750_576175672417367_1488896527_n.jpg


learned from william henry harrison

[Winehole23]

The Central Intelligence Agency is the elephant in the room, big and clumsy and bumping into everything, even though everyone tries to avoid mentioning it. The CIA misjudged the security threat in Benghazi and contributed mightily to the confusion afterwards. The ass-covering of then-CIA Director David Petraeus, particularly, muddled the question of what could and should be told to the public.


On Wednesday, the White House released 100 pages of emails (http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/701145/white-house-e-mails-on-benghazi-talking-points.pdf) about the preparation of the Benghazi talking points in the days after the tragedy. They were written and edited for use by members of the intelligence committees on the Hill, and only later passed along, almost as an afterthought, to UN Ambassador Susan Rice for her much-criticized appearances on Sunday talk shows.

If you actually slog through the whole stack, a couple of points become apparent:

First of all, nobody in any of the drafts that were zipping back and forth between the CIA, the White House, the State Department and the FBI on September 14 questioned the central assertion of the first bullet point of the first CIA version: On the basis of the scant evidence available at that time, it said, the attacks in Benghazi “were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US embassy in Cairo” and evolved into a “direct assault” on the outposts in Benghazi.


In a press conference Thursday, President Obama demanded congressional help to prevent future tragedies like Benghazi.

This was clearly an important point for the CIA to make because it had failed completely to come up with any actionable intelligence of an impending attack in Benghazi before the event. And given the very substantial presence of the CIA in Benghazi at that time—a presence the agency actively tried to obscure in all subsequent reporting—that failure was hard to excuse. But if the attack were “spontaneous,” of course there wouldn’t have been a warning to give.

So the initial CIA drafts for the talking points were full of generalizations suggesting the agency really was aware of the overall threat environment (as was everybody else in Libya). In several early versions the agency kept making the point that it had warned the embassy in Cairo the night before the demonstrations that there were “social media reports” (my italics) “encouraging jihadists to break into the embassy.” That is, the embassy in Egypt, not Libya.

The early CIA drafts said the crowd that attacked in Benghazi “almost certainly was a mix of individuals from across many sectors of Libyan society. That being said, we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to Al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.”

But when challenged about how they knew this about Al Qaeda, the authors of the agency talking points backed down. As for the involvement of a shady Islamist group called Ansar al-Sharia, that bit of information (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/12/u-s-ambassador-to-libya-killed.html) had been reported already by journalists on the ground and in the early drafts of the talking points the CIA just cited “open sources,” meaning previously published reports. There was no indication that the agency knew anything directly about Ansar’s involvement.

The next morning all that CYA from the CIA was edited out with a few sweeping strokes of the pen by Michael Morell, the agency’s deputy director. What was left was very little because, in point of fact, the agency had few facts to muster. When Petraeus saw the end result he was disappointed. “No mention of the cable to Cairo, either?” he asked. That is, the cable that quoted the social media about an impending demonstration at the embassy in Egypt.

In December under orders from then–secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the State Department Accountability Review Board issued a report on Benghazi (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/202446.pdf) overseen by Ambassador Thomas Pickering and Admiral Michael Mullen, a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In the unclassified version, the Central Intelligence Agency, as such, is not mentioned a single time. There are just references to people in "the Annex."

In fact, the whole picture of the "consulate" in Benghazi, as portrayed in most of the headlines and hearings, is misleading. It was not really a consulate at all by the strict State Department definition of the term, it was called a "special mission" and had grown out of the improvised presence that Chris Stevens had established in Benghazi as the envoy to the rebels during the fighting to overthrow the Gaddafi dictatorship. From the beginning, the agency was there behind the scenes. When a terrorist bomb hit the hotel where Stevens was staying during the fighting in 2011, he and his team just moved in with the CIA at their so-called "Annex."


Even after Stevens officially became ambassador in Tripoli in mid-2012 he did not take the initiative to turn the diplomatic mission in Benghazi into a formal consulate. Partly as a result, it started to fall between the bureaucratic cracks at Foggy Bottom and couldn’t command as many security measures as it should have. as it should have. As one knowledgeable U.S. official told The Daily Beast's Eli Lake (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05/10/in-benghazi-cia-trusted-local-militia-that-melted-away.html), "The Benghazi compound was a U.S, intelligence station with State Department cover."http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05/17/truth-justice-and-benghazi.html

[TeyshaBlue]

"So why wasn't Benghazi terrorism? Because the people targeted weren't civilians. As The Wall Street Journal has reported, "The U.S. effort in Benghazi was at its heart a CIA operation, according to officials briefed on the intelligence. Of the more than 30 American officials evacuated from Benghazi following the deadly assault, only seven worked for the State Department. Nearly all the rest worked for the CIA, under diplomatic cover, which was a principal purpose of the consulate, these officials said." CIA officials are not civilians. That doesn't make their deaths any less tragic or painful for their families, but it's the truth. Nor is a CIA outpost a civilian target."
/thread

[boutons_deux]

Republicans Altered Benghazi Emails, CBS News Report Claims One day after The White House released (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/15/white-house-benghazi-emails_n_3280734.html) 100 pages of Benghazi emails, a report has surfaced alleging that Republicans released a set with altered text.

CBS News reported Thursday (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57584947/wh-benghazi-emails-have-different-quotes-than-earlier-reported/%3Cbr%20/%3E) that leaked versions sent out by the GOP last Friday had visible differences than Wednesday's official batch. Two correspondences that were singled out in the report came from National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes and State Department Spokeswoman Victoria Nuland.

The GOP version of Rhodes' comment, according to CBS News: "We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don't want to undermine the FBI investigation."

The White House email: "We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation."

The GOP version of Nuland's comment, according to CBS News: The penultimate point is a paragraph talking about all the previous warnings provided by the Agency (CIA) about al-Qaeda's presence and activities of al-Qaeda."

The White House email: "The penultimate point could be abused by members to beat the State Department for not paying attention to Agency warnings."

The news parallels a Tuesday CNN report (http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/14/cnn-exclusive-white-house-email-contradicts-benghazi-leaks/) which initially introduced the contradiction between what was revealed in a White House Benghazi email version, versus what was reported in media outlets. On Monday, Mother Jones noted that the Republicans'
interim report (http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/05/boehner-benghazi-emails) included the correct version of the emails, signaling that more malice and less incompetence may have been at play with the alleged alterations.


In that April interim report on Benghazi (which Buck noted), the House Republicans cited these emails (in footnotes 56 and 57) to note an important point: "State Department emails reveal senior officials had 'serious concerns' about the talking points, because Members of Congress might attack the State Department for 'not paying attention to Agency warnings' about the growing threat in Benghazi."
Despite the White House's Wednesday move to release emails, Republicans continued to call for more information on Thursday.

"While these hundred are good and they shed light on what happened, we have nearly 25,000 that they haven't released," Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/16/republicans-press-for-more-documents-on-benghazi-dems-say-case-closed/) told Fox News on Thursday.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/16/republicans-benghazi-emails_n_3289428.html?utm_hp_ref=daily-brief?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=051713&utm_medium=email&utm_content=NewsEntry&utm_term=Daily%20Brief

Repugs never tire of being witch-hunting, scandal-fabricating, bad-faith, 37-times-repealing-ACA assholes.

[Winehole23]

posted upstream two hours ago, silly bot.

[TeyshaBlue]

lol

[boutons_deux]

Tonight Maddow just said the Repug operatives, still unknown fake "sources", MADE UP "summaries" of the emails they never saw and fed them to the press, esp ABC/Tapper. so the entire "WH lied in the hours after Benghazi" is just another Repug LIE.

[Nbadan]

Catchy

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BKfDUfPCEAAFS_w.jpg

[SA210]

Tonight Maddow just said the Repug operatives, still unknown fake "sources", MADE UP "summaries" of the emails they never saw and fed them to the press, esp ABC/Tapper. so the entire "WH lied in the hours after Benghazi" is just another Repug LIE.


So then treasonous/war criminal Obama is NOT aiding and gun/weapons running to Al Qaeda linked rebels in Syria and never did in Libya, you mean he DIDN'T illegally intervene in Libya BEFOREHAND causing this blowback, causing the deaths by murder of innocent women, children, men and even Americans now by this, and then lying and blaming it on a video? That's deep. Not.

[Nbadan]

http://i.imgur.com/ULxPg.jpg

[Jacob1983]

Okay I'm back after a few days off from this thread. I liked the days when the biggest problem in America was that the president had oral sex from a fugly intern and lied about it. Those were the days. We were so fuckin' spoiled and didn't even know it. Oh well, good times.

[boutons_deux]

As if anybody had to tell Repugs not to do their jobs, to solve problems with legislation :lol

Conservative Advice To GOP: Don't Legislate, Focus On Scandals


Heritage Action, the political activist offshoot of the conservative Heritage Foundation, has some advice for House Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor: focus on the scandals plaguing the Obama administration and stay away from legislation that could "highlight major schisms" within the House Republican Conference.

In a to the leaders, Heritage Action CEO Michael Needham says "outrage over Benghazi" and the IRS targeting of Tea Party groups has "rightly focused the nation's attention squarely on the actions of the Obama administration." The letter goes on to say the House must continue holding oversight hearings, "but it would be imprudent to do anything that shifts the focus from the Obama administration to the ideological differences within the House Republican Conference."

The letter specifically mentions the Internet sales tax bill (which recently passed the Senate with lots of Republican support) and the farm bill (the Senate is working through it now and is likely to pass it soon). Needham says both bills, which House conservatives dislike, could prompt the press to write another " 'circular firing squad' article."

"Rather than scheduling such legislation for consideration, we urge you to keep the attention focused squarely on the Obama administration," Needham wrote in summation.

One might ask why Boehner and Cantor would even think about taking advice from a group that at times has worked at agenda. But Boehner's spokesman didn't take the bait, choosing not to comment on the Heritage Action letter.

The Speaker has made it clear he thinks the House can and should walk and chew gum at the same time. On the investigations, he said at a news conference Thursday: "When you're trying to seek the truth, and if that is the goal to seek the truth, there is no line." That is, no line where they risk taking the investigations too far, .

And Boehner said he doesn't think these investigations would get in the way of the House legislative agenda. "We've got a job here to legislate," he said at his on-camera Q&A Thursday. "We're trying to do everything to create jobs and we're going to continue to do everything we can to do that."

Next week the House is expected to consider a bill dealing with student loan interest rates and a measure that would approve construction of the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/05/17/184824660/advice-to-gop-dont-legislate-focus-on-scandals?sc=17&f=1014

This corresponds to Bitch McConnel in 2009 saying the Repug priority was to make Barry a one-term Presidnet, NOT move the country forward (so they write dozens of abortion bills,amdendments, and vote to repeal ACA 37 times! :lol )

The Repugs today are the post-policy party, All Politics, All The Time, Fuck Government, Fuck Governing, which is what we saw going back to 2001.

[boutons_deux]

bubbafart, ABC, etc lied to you with LIES fabricated by Repug hatchet men and handed to Jonathan Karl. :lol

[RandomGuy]

Time Magazine has a good summary and copies of the edits. No smoking gun, but the specific edits like changing the word attack to demonstration bugs me. Plus, the narrative the white house ran with like the youtube video story reeks of deception. Is this impeachable or on par with Watergate, absolutely not imo. However, it's more reason why I can't stand politics.

http://swampland.time.com/2013/05/16/timeline-the-benghazi-emails/

Lots of smoke, but no gun, IMO.

The executive branch under Cheney became obsessed with controlling the narrative, and that has continued under Obama, who campaigned on transparency.

Pity.

[RandomGuy]

:lol Boutons

[RandomGuy]

."The fact that there are inputs is always the case in a process like this. But the only edits made by anyone here at the White House were stylistic and non-substantive. They corrected the description of the building or the facility in Benghazi from 'consulate' to 'diplomatic facility' and the like," he said.
State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell also said Rice's comments were based on the intelligence community's "best assessment that there was not any evidence of months-long pre-planning or pre-meditation, which remains their assessment."


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/10/benghazi-talking-points-reportedly-revised-12-times-official-concerned-would/#ixzz2Sunr7jml


OK, are intelligence assessments often revised before release?

Yes or no -- and back up your answer with linked explanations.


:lol

:lmao


That isn't really an answer. I will ask because it seems pretty important to the OP.


OK, are intelligence assessments often revised before release?
Yes or no -- and back up your answer with linked explanations.

2nd time this is asked.


You do not change a story 12 times.:lol




That isn't really an answer to that question.

Simple yes or no is all that is required.

3rd time:
OK, are intelligence assessments often revised before release?
Please back up your answer with linked explanations, so we can see for ourselves if your answer holds up.



:lol Boutons

You keep ignoring this question. It won't go away, and the longer you keep ignoring it, the worse this entire thread looks, which suits me just fine.

Simple yes or no is all that is required.

4th time:
OK, are intelligence assessments often revised before release?
Please back up your answer with linked explanations, so we can see for ourselves if your answer holds up

[RandomGuy]

Is there anyone in the GOP for whom you would vote?

Sure. They tend to be the moderates that get pilloried in the primaries. Huntsman was one.

I doubt anybody I would find moderate enough to be happy with could possibily make it through the gauntet of dogwhistle litmus tests.

I offer:
The last GOP primary battle.

Cain, Bachmann, etc.

They picked the MOST moderate guy they could find in that pack, and that says volumes.

[Spurtacular]

Yup, SA210 is will never actually discuss Benghazi. I am much more interesting to him.

Wow. Chump was doing this play back in 2013. :lol

[Spurtacular]

Still in my top ten admirers tbh.

Recent Visitors
The last 10 visitor(s) to this page were:

Austin_Toros,
Blake,
Creepn,
DUNCANownsKOBE,
moisaenz,
SA210,
spurraider21,
superman78221,
Woo Bum-kon,
xtremesteven33

:lmao And to prove that it wasn't about you.
:lmao cuck and lite "admiring"

[Pavlov]

Wow. Chump was doing this play back in 2013. :lol


:lmao And to prove that it wasn't about you.
:lmao cuck and lite "admiring"
These posts are all about me.

[Spurtacular]

These posts are all about me.

Coping mechanism.

:lmao Doing the 2013 chump defense on the same page you were called out for it, too.

[clambake]

somebody has a crush.

[Pavlov]

Coping mechanism.

:lmao Doing the 2013 chump defense on the same page you were called out for it, too.That post was about me.

[Spurtacular]

somebody has a crush.

Absolutely. Cuck Blake you'd follow chump to the ends of the earth.

[Pavlov]

Absolutely. Cuck Blake you'd follow chump to the ends of the earth.That post is about Blake.

[Spurtacular]

That post was about me.

Fair enough. It was a time for you to cope. I withdraw my argument.

[Spurtacular]

That post is about Blake.

And the cow says? :lol

[Pavlov]

Fair enough. It was a time for you to cope. I withdraw my argument.This post of yours is about me too.

[clambake]

Absolutely. Cuck Blake you'd follow chump to the ends of the earth.

who's chump? i was referring to your romantic wishes for pavlov.

[Spurtacular]

who's chump? i was referring to your romantic wishes for pavlov.

:lol Cuck got no game.