New Benghazi E-mails Link White House to Doctoring of Talking Points

[aaronleland]

the pretend rabbi is also a compulsive liar.

ask him where he and the other nutters were during baby bush's 13 benghazis with their 50 dead.

oh wait....

Oh that was sooo pre-2009. Now they care...really! They really do!

Know what you two cock-breath faggots?

Start a separate thread on those incidents and stop trying to derail this one.

scum sucking slime.

If you are holding Obama to a higher standard than every president before him, it's fair to ask why.

 

[Jarhead]

Oh no! talking points altered!!!!

The President of the United States intentionally lying to the American people about an international terrorist attack because he was concerned it would interfere with his political aspirations.....

And you see it as nothing?

Not surprised. You are, of course, a child...all you care about is getting your dick wet.

Fuck off.

 

[ClosedCaption]

the pretend rabbi is also a compulsive liar.

ask him where he and the other nutters were during baby bush's 13 benghazis with their 50 dead.

oh wait....

Oh that was sooo pre-2009. Now they care...really! They really do!

Know what you two cock-breath faggots?

Start a separate thread on those incidents and stop trying to derail this one.

scum sucking slime.

CRYYYY!! GO ON CRYYY BABY!!

 

[TemplarKormac]

Yes they will, because they have a worse record than dems..

Uhh, for what? And you lose all credibility by citing Mother Jones.

Here is something you do not seem to understand. Mother Jones posts both blogs and facts. When they post a blog/opinion you have a right to be skeptical. However, when they post facts (the graph in question) you are left with two choices. You can either accept the facts OR you can find proof the facts are wrong. Ignoring the facts, which appears to be your choice for ignoring reality, is not an option.

Do you think that by typing in boldface you'll sound more authoritative? What you don't understand is that Mother Jones is a left leaning news outlet. So, what do you have to say for yourself now, my friend? My version of reality does not involve citing biased news or statistics.

(Fox News is biased, so are the other news media outlets. But Fox happened to be the first one to break this news. So, back off.)

 

[Jarhead]

Here is something you do not seem to understand. Mother Jones posts both blogs and facts. When they post a blog/opinion you have a right to be skeptical. However, when they post facts (the graph in question) you are left with two choices. You can either accept the facts OR you can find proof the facts are wrong. Ignoring the facts, which appears to be your choice for ignoring reality, is not an option.

you mean lying like obama?
greed like al gore? stupidity like nancy pelosi?

libs are losers who lie to themelves

No conservative has ever lied??

if you don't see the issue of a POTUS lying about an international event during the tail end of a campaign so he can win an election....then you don't understand "by the people and for the people"...

 

[TemplarKormac]

Oh that was sooo pre-2009. Now they care...really! They really do!

Know what you two cock-breath faggots?

Start a separate thread on those incidents and stop trying to derail this one.

scum sucking slime.

If you are holding Obama to a higher standard than every president before him, it's fair to ask why.

It isn't fair, when the man set those high standards for himself. Perhaps we are only wanting to hold him to his word. He promised to be transparent, yet it took a FOIA lawsuit to get that transparency, and 2 years after the fact.

 

[ron4342]

Uhh, for what? And you lose all credibility by citing Mother Jones.

Here is something you do not seem to understand. Mother Jones posts both blogs and facts. When they post a blog/opinion you have a right to be skeptical. However, when they post facts (the graph in question) you are left with two choices. You can either accept the facts OR you can find proof the facts are wrong. Ignoring the facts, which appears to be your choice for ignoring reality, is not an option.

you mean lying like obama?
greed like al gore? stupidity like nancy pelosi?

libs are losers who lie to themelves

I think I am beginning to see what the problem is. You do not know what a 'lie is. A lie occurs when someone knows the truth but purposely makes false statement. Here is an example of a lie: george w. bush was briefed by the CIA and military intelligence that Iraq DID NOT have WMD. He and other members of the WH then told the US that Iraq DID have WMD. THAT IS A LIE. It is a lie because he knew the truth and did not tell that truth to the US. For Obama to have lied he would have had to know the truth prior to speaking. NO ONE HAS COME FORTH AND PROVEN THAT OBAMA KNEW THE TRUTH BEFORE SPEAKING. Until someone does so your statement that Obama lied is just another spew from the right.

 

[aaronleland]

Know what you two cock-breath faggots?

Start a separate thread on those incidents and stop trying to derail this one.

scum sucking slime.

If you are holding Obama to a higher standard than every president before him, it's fair to ask why.

It isn't fair, when the man set those high standards for himself. Perhaps we are only wanting to hold him to his word. He promised to be transparent, yet it took a FOIA lawsuit to get that transparency, and 2 years after the fact.

The blame can be laid at the feet of those who believed another career politician that his administration would be more transparent. I can't speak for those who voted him into office. My gripe is with those Republicans who suddenly gave a shit about embassy attacks in the first place.

 

[The Rabbi]

Here is something you do not seem to understand. Mother Jones posts both blogs and facts. When they post a blog/opinion you have a right to be skeptical. However, when they post facts (the graph in question) you are left with two choices. You can either accept the facts OR you can find proof the facts are wrong. Ignoring the facts, which appears to be your choice for ignoring reality, is not an option.

you mean lying like obama?
greed like al gore? stupidity like nancy pelosi?

libs are losers who lie to themelves

I think I am beginning to see what the problem is. You do not know what a 'lie is. A lie occurs when someone knows the truth but purposely makes false statement. Here is an example of a lie: george w. bush was briefed by the CIA and military intelligence that Iraq DID NOT have WMD. He and other members of the WH then told the US that Iraq DID have WMD. THAT IS A LIE. It is a lie because he knew the truth and did not tell that truth to the US. For Obama to have lied he would have had to know the truth prior to speaking. NO ONE HAS COME FORTH AND PROVEN THAT OBAMA KNEW THE TRUTH BEFORE SPEAKING. Until someone does so your statement that Obama lied is just another spew from the right.

I think you dont know what the truth is.
With Bush, he also had information Iraq did have WMD and active programs to develop them. Which was true.
In Obama's case, he knew the video had nothing to do with it. He put out that it was a spontaneous demonstration against the video because the truth would hurt his re-election chances. That is not just a lie but a damned outrageous lie told for his personal benefit.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Oh no! talking points altered!!!!

At this point what difference does it make?

It doesn't. This dog never would hunt for you guys, and it still won't.

Stevens made his bed, it was his call, he chose to be there that day, and now he lies in it. Let's mush on.

Idiot as always. Cover up by the idiots in the white house to protect the idiot in chief obamashitforbrains and you idiots say lets move on. IDIOT!!!!!

 

[DriftingSand]

Oh no! talking points altered!!!!

At this point what difference does it make?

It doesn't. This dog never would hunt for you guys, and it still won't.

Stevens made his bed, it was his call, he chose to be there that day, and now he lies in it. Let's mush on.

 

[novasteve]

Emails: White House tried to shape Benghazi story

What difference does it make?

 

[WelfareQueen]

Finally!!!!


Judicial Watch was able to obtain e-mails via the Freedom of Information Act that the White refused to release on Benghazi. Here is the key finding.


"More than 100 pages of documents were released to the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. Among them was a Sept. 14, 2012, email from Ben Rhodes, an assistant to the president and deputy national security adviser for strategic communications.

The Rhodes email, with the subject line: "RE: PREP Call with Susan: Saturday at 4:00 pm ET," was sent to a dozen members of the administration's inner circle, including key members of the White House communications team such as Press Secretary Jay Carney.

In the email, Rhodes specifically draws attention to the anti-Islam Internet video, without distinguishing whether the Benghazi attack was different from protests elsewhere.

The email lists the following two goals, among others:

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

"To reinforce the President and Administration's strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges."

The email goes on to state that the U.S. government rejected the message of the Internet video. "We find it disgusting and reprehensible. But there is absolutely no justification at all for responding to this movie with violence," the email stated.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said the documents read like a PR strategy, not an effort to provide the best available intelligence to the American people.

"The goal of the White House was to do one thing primarily, which was to make the president look good. Blame it on the video and not [the] president's policies," he said.

The Rhodes email was not part of the 100 pages of emails released by the administration last May -- after Republicans refused to move forward with the confirmation of John Brennan as CIA director until the so-called "talking points" emails were made public."



Link to the full story. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...use-aide-involved-in-prepping-rice-for-video/

 

[deltex1]

Well, well, well. What do we have here? It appears that the narrative of Benghazi being a "spontaneous protest brought on by a video" was the work of none other than White House officials.

Newly released emails on the Benghazi terror attack suggest a senior White House aide played a central role in preparing former U.N. ambassador Susan Rice for her controversial Sunday show appearances -- where she wrongly blamed protests over an Internet video.

More than 100 pages of documents were released to the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. Among them was a Sept. 14, 2012, email from Ben Rhodes, an assistant to the president and deputy national security adviser for strategic communications.

The Rhodes email, with the subject line: "RE: PREP Call with Susan: Saturday at 4:00 pm ET," was sent to a dozen members of the administration's inner circle, including key members of the White House communications team such as Press Secretary Jay Carney.

In the email, Rhodes specifically draws attention to the anti-Islam Internet video, without distinguishing whether the Benghazi attack was different from protests elsewhere.

The email lists the following two goals, among others:

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

"To reinforce the President and Administration's strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges."

The email goes on to state that the U.S. government rejected the message of the Internet video. "We find it disgusting and reprehensible. But there is absolutely no justification at all for responding to this movie with violence," the email stated

Benghazi emails suggest White House aide involved in prepping Rice for ?video? explanation | Fox News

Shocked...dats wha I is...jus shocked.

 

[WelfareQueen]

Oh no! talking points altered!!!!

At this point what difference does it make?

None. Its a shame that the Benghazi "scandal" has been reduced to changing of talking points but you gotta have something. To walk away empty handed would suck

Yeah....it's just another lie among thousands the shitheads in the Obama Administration have put out. Granted, this lie involved the death of 4 Americans...but wtf...right?

 

[williepete]

"...the documents read like a PR strategy, not an effort to provide the best available intelligence to the American people."

And this from the most transparent administration in history.

I'm shocked I tell you. Shocked.

 

[nodoginnafight]

This is a PR document.
Man, thank goodness for the Second Amendment - guarantees our right to unlimited smoking guns ....

 

[KNB]

It looks like Republicans have Obama right where they want him now. Pretty soon another Republican will be elected and then the big government will be okay again.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Yeah, except Obama will be out next time no matter what.

 

[ClosedCaption]

At this point what difference does it make?

None. Its a shame that the Benghazi "scandal" has been reduced to changing of talking points but you gotta have something. To walk away empty handed would suck

Yeah....it's just another lie among thousands the shitheads in the Obama Administration have put out. Granted, this lie involved the death of 4 Americans...but wtf...right?

No the lie involved a talking point