Saturday, May 3, 2014

Note what the Email says about itself. See bullet 2





 
Normally I do not add an addendum this long after posting, but I thought

this might help clear up a few things, SOOOO
 
ADDENDUM:
 

I was going to cut and paste the relevant portions of the “smoking gun” Emails concerning the attacks at Benghazi and Susan Rice’s instructions to go on TV and say the unrest was caused by a third rate, nti-Islamic video.

However, the site at Judicial Watch does not allow cut and paste. So, here is the link to the entire set of Emails.
In the email, Ben Rhodes, deputy national security adviser, says Rice should “underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy." “These protests” might be understood to refer to more than just Benghazi, but they certainly included Benghazi. The clear intent was to lead people to believe one thing about the protests, when something else was KNOWN to be true.
Richard Nixon was forced to resign the presidency over one, single, solitary lie concerning a two-bit break-in at the Watergate. One lie! Just one.

President BO (the amateur president) has lied and lied and lied without consequence. What a travesty!
As Fredd points out, This president has lied about so much now, it is expected of him. He lied about taking public matching campaign funds in 2007. He lied about being the most transparent administration ever. He lied about reducing the deficit by half in four years. He lied about closing Guantanamo Bay. He lied about Fast and Furious. He lied about the IRS scandal (not a smidgen of evidence, he says), and he lied about nearly everything that matters to the American public.

Then he lied about the major selling point on the hated Affordable Health Care Act (Obamacare): 'if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan. Period.
'
So, why do so many liberals think he told the truth about Benghazi? Why do they think he should still be the president?

27 comments:

Fredd said...

Joe, are you going to believe what Jay Carney tells you is true, or your own lying eyes?

Joe said...

Fredd: I'll have to think about that a second...I won't believe Jay Carney.

See, our "good friend" CO accused me of having not read the document. I guess he missed this part.

Joe said...

I think that was supposed to be XO

Craig said...

That is the one sentence in the memo that the Righty's are focused on. Notice it says "these protests", plural. It did not say "the protest in Benghazi". Rice was being prepped for the Sunday shows when protests were going on all over. They were explicitly protesting the video.

All of these are parts of questions to Rice on Sept. 16, 2012.

Chris Wallace- This week, there have been anti-American protests in two dozen countries across the Islamic world. The White House says it has nothing to do with the president's policies.

Jake Tapper- But first, the crisis that has the potential to shake up the presidential race, the murder of four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador, in Benghazi, Libya, on Tuesday, and the wave of anti-American protests and violence now sweeping the globe.

Bob Shieffer- There seems to be demonstrations in more than twenty cities as far as we know yesterday. Is there any sense that this is leveling off?

David Gregory- Relative calm this morning in the Middle East after several days of intense anti-American protests raged across many parts of the Islamic world... and we'll share the map of all of this turmoil with our viewers to show the scale of it across not just the Arab world, but the entire Islamic world and flash points as well.

Candy- Let me move you to what's gone on in the Middle East in Arab countries and elsewhere... Does the administration expect to see these sorts of protests outside U.S. embassies and elsewhere throughout the fall?

Those shows where Rice appeared weren't only focused on Benghazi. That's what the revisionists want you to believe. One sentence, prepping Rice, were clearly about the broader wave of protests in a 15 paragraph memo isn't a smoking gun.

If your as concerned with truth as you say you are, take XO's advice, read the memo. Using the tragic death of 4 Americans as pawns in a political smear campaign to bring down Hillary is really unseemly. Why do you want to be part of it? Your immortal soul is at stake, Joe.

Duckys here said...

*chirp* *chirp* *chirp*

Joe said...

Craig: Protests in Benghazi were the focus of and reason for the Email in the first place.

Surely your ideology does not leave you that blind, does it?

Joe said...

Craig: Let me see, now. The protests included in "these" excluded Benghazi, right?

Dave Miller said...

Joe, what happened at Benghazi has been looked at from multiple angles by both political parties.

Military officials have roundly said no action could have saved the lives of the people there.

The Issa hearings are not even looking into the events of Benghazi, or our response that night, because there is no there there.

They are focused on how they events were characterized in the media.

Was the Obama Admin playing CYA? Of course they were, just like every president does.

Remember, Bush got a memo titled Bin Laden determined to attack the US.

Where were Issa, Graham and bloggers such as yourself then with another fairly clear memo?

We tragically lost 4 people in Libya. We lost thousands on 9/11. Where is the perspective?

At least in Libya we can argue that the people there knew the risks and chose to put their lives in jeopardy.

Joe said...

DM: "Military officials have roundly said no action could have saved the lives of the people there."

Therefore we should not have tried.

Therefore it was OK to knowingly and deliberately lie about it.

Since other presidents have done it, it's OK for this one to do it, right?

Whatever any previous presidents have done, it is OK for subsequent presidents to do, legal, right or not.

Is that what you're saying?

Dave Miller said...

Joe, since you are asking, I never said anything like what you are saying.

Where I am coming from is a disgust with the political right, or conservatives, or the GOP, personally attacking a president, like you do every time you use the tired PBO TAP monikers for the same behavior others used.

You are as bad from the right as the code pink/cyndy sheehan crowd was from the left. You claim to be disgusted with politics as usual, but it will ring hollow until we see a consistent disgust for the hacks on the right as well.

Attack policies and be consistent. Anything else is just partisan garbage. Look, I liked Clinton, but I felt he embarrassed us and should have resigned and I said so.

I hated Al Gore, said so and did not vote for him. And when he lost, I criticized the left for their chagrin because he lost his own state for crying out loud.

Issa has zero cred because he has demonstrated that he only wants government oversight of Admin screwups when they happen to a Dem. And the same can be said about a number of conservatives.

And yes, liberals too.

Regarding the military response, conservatives have long said we should listen to our military leaders. Until they disagree with them. The battlefield personnel said there was nothing they could have done. They said no aid could have got there in time to make a difference. Now, either they were/are lying to defend a liberal pres [a big charge] or they are right.

it may make you feel better to have tried, but it would not hace changed the situation and we might have ended up with more causalities.

But again, Issa is not looking at Benghazi, because the facts don't support him, or the conservative rage over the deaths of those men.

The only thing he's got is how the Admin explained it.

Joe said...

DM: You're a fair man. So are they all, all fair men.

Duckys here said...

DM: "Military officials have roundly said no action could have saved the lives of the people there."

Therefore we should not have tried.

----
Yes, Joe, you are finally understanding.

We had no idea if a response would have intensified the riots or if the response would have encountered an ambush.

Or would you have had them risk further casualties, Joe?


Now as for the supposed lies.
I think most agree that the CIA was up to something in Benghazi but the CIA often operates off the books and we aren't likely to know what happened. Often the president doesn't know what the CIA or NSA is up to.

So riots break out all over the Mideast and as Craig has pointed out the totality of the riots was the initial concern. It is accepted that militants were using the crude film as a rallying point.

No lies here and nothing that we haven't seen before.

However, it is clear that there was something additional going on in Benghazi and you have yet to demonstrate that the nature of that action was known at the time.

So you have a very weak position, Joe and pimping for McCain, Graham and Ayotte as they grandstand is only going to make Republicans look more foolish.

I'm still taken by your idea that in the face of miniscule likelihood of improving the conditions at Benghazi we should have mounted a military response. Please dig your hole a little deeper and explain that fascinating position.


Duckys here said...

Craig: Protests in Benghazi were the focus of and reason for the Email in the first place.

---
Not in evidence.

If it were the initial focus the memo would have said so.

Joe said...

Ducky: "So you have a very weak position, Joe..."

Yeah. I'm a very weak guy. That's why your're so afraid of me.

Lisa said...

This is what needs to be focused on
on

Unknown said...

Ya know what? Go right ahead, Impeach Obama!

Put all your cards on the table and go for the gold!

Nut up or shut up!

The Republicans have already dug their own grave with their incredibly stupid remarks about rape and women's reproductive super powers. And they continue to dig the grave deeper with their racist comments about African-Americans, and their anti-immigrant positions, and their voter ID laws, etc., etc, etc.

So yes, by all means, IMPEACH OBAMA! It will be funny watching people at the bottom of the grave they dug shoveling dirt on themselves.

Go for it, idiots.

Unknown said...

Xavier Onassis - "Unknown" was me. I am Unknown! LOL!

Can't really be bothered with logging in and out of google accounts for this.

Duckys here said...

That's it, XO, get jiggy with it.
There are clear high crimes and misdemeanors afoot.

1. Despite advice and all indications that a military response would only endanger more personnel he still chose the prudent route and didn't call a strike.
Clearly a high crime.

2. In the fog of multiple uprisings around the middle east it was not immediately clear who were participants in Benghazi and best information was used and later corrected.
High crime or misdemeanor clearly. You choose which.

The Teabags seem intent on using this one as their one note leading up to the election since resistance to the ACA is dissipating and calling the IRS reviews a scandal only makes them look foolish.

Benghazi will probably make them look foolish also but maybe Glenn or Joe can explain why not.

Lisa said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lisa said...

The only reason Benghazi can make Republicans look foolish is because 99% of the media will make sure of it,unlike the 24/7 reporting they did over the fabricated Valerie Plame story. They made people believe Bush was behind it and when the truth came out that they knew it was Armitage all along outed by her own husband,lol.They made sure not to publicly apologize for their relentless false accusations.

Xavier Onassis said...

Lisa - I love the way that the Right blames the media for making them look stupid by accurately reporting the stupid that spills out of their drooling pie holes.

The Republicans could probably win more elections if they kept their mouths shut and stopped telling people what they believe.

"Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding." Proverbs 17:28

In more common terms, it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.

Xavier Onassis said...

On August 6, 2011, George W. Bush "...while vacationing at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, received a classified intelligence memo titled, “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.”

He did absolutely nothing about that memo, and just over a month later 3000 people died and ordinary Americans lost any semblance of privacy and anonymity due to the draconian over reaction to the attack while we were dragged into two wars that dragged on for over 10 years that cost the American tax payer trillions of dollars and threw the country into a recession, put thousands of brave soldiers through a meat grinder that killed or maimed them, only to see the very same Republican politicians that sent them to war cut their veteran benefits and let them commit suicide in record numbers so they could give more tax cuts to billionaires. And you are still hammering away on 4 dead diplomats in Benghazi? Seriously?

Craig said...

Kids, this is what a 'smoking gun' looks like. From another memo the Right shrugged off, the Downing Street Memo,

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

The intel and facts weren't wrong, they were fixed. After a year and a half of investigating, there's no evidence the CIA talking points for Rice were fixed, just wrong.

By all means, drag this circus out all summer.

Duckys here said...

Too bad they can't appoint Lara Logan to the investigative committee, eh Joe?

Duckys here said...

Nice move by the car thief, eh Joe?

"House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) compromised the identities of several Libyans working with the U.S. government and placed their lives in danger when he released reams of State Department communications Friday.

Issa posted 166 pages of sensitive but unclassified State Department communications related to Libya on the committee's website.

But Issa didn't bother to redact the names of Libyan civilians and local leaders mentioned in the cables, and just as with the WikiLeaks dump of State Department cables last year, the administration says that Issa has done damage to U.S. efforts to work with those Libyans and exposed them to physical danger from the very groups that had an interest in attacking the U.S. consulate."

Lisa said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lisa said...

XO most of what republicans say is in defense of media attacks and attacks by Obama always pointing his blaming finger at them. He is such a big baby. He is supposed to be a leader but he is nothing but a mouthpiece. Now back to telling people what to believe. The dems are notorius for that. They have been using their message on women,war on minorities,blah,blah for years. Yet under democrats nobody does better oh except under Obama how the rich got richer and then in typical communistic form he demonizes the rich while being cheered on by useful idiots