Rice: We didn't intend to mislead on Benghazi

[BlindBoo]

Here's question. If the Obama administration screwed up so bad and got Americans killed in Benghazi and did nothing to save them why is the intel community not raising a fire storm. Why is the current CIA director going with Rice to meet the the gang of three (still working on the right word here)? I thought the military hated Obama? Not a single one coming out against the administration?

Let me see if I've got this straight? You're actually amazed that the new CIA Director...someone who was just appointed by Barack Obama...is going with Rice to answer questions? Were you naive enough to think that Barry would appoint someone who WOULDN'T go along with the narrative they're trying to sell?

Gotta tell you, Empty...some of your posts show you to be, shall we say...not the sharpest tool in the shed?

Oh and by the way? The CIA is not the military.

Mr. Morell began his Agency career in 1980 as an analyst covering international energy issues. He later worked on East Asia for 14 years, holding a number of jobs in analysis and in management before his selection in 1999 as Director of the Office of Asian Pacific and Latin American Analysis. He also served as the intelligence briefer to President George W. Bush, as chief of the staff that produces the President’s Daily Brief, and as an executive assistant to CIA Director George J. Tenet.

Before assuming his current position, Mr. Morell was the CIA’s Deputy Director under David H. Petraeus. Mr. Morell began serving as Deputy Director in May 2010 under Mr. Panetta, after spending two years as the head of the Agency’s main analytic arm, the Directorate of Intelligence. Before that job, Mr. Morell served as the CIA’s Associate Deputy Director from 2006 until 2008, helping with the overall leadership of the Agency and focusing in particular on its internal management.

https://www.cia.gov/about-cia/leadership/michael-j.-morell.html

hmmm, doesn't sound like a "yes" man to me.

 

[emptystep]

Here's question. If the Obama administration screwed up so bad and got Americans killed in Benghazi and did nothing to save them why is the intel community not raising a fire storm. Why is the current CIA director going with Rice to meet the the gang of three (still working on the right word here)? I thought the military hated Obama? Not a single one coming out against the administration?

Let me see if I've got this straight? You're actually amazed that the new CIA Director...someone who was just appointed by Barack Obama...is going with Rice to answer questions? Were you naive enough to think that Barry would appoint someone who WOULDN'T go along with the narrative they're trying to sell?

Gotta tell you, Empty...some of your posts show you to be, shall we say...not the sharpest tool in the shed?

Oh and by the way? The CIA is not the military.

Mr. Morell began his Agency career in 1980 as an analyst covering international energy issues. He later worked on East Asia for 14 years, holding a number of jobs in analysis and in management before his selection in 1999 as Director of the Office of Asian Pacific and Latin American Analysis. He also served as the intelligence briefer to President George W. Bush, as chief of the staff that produces the President’s Daily Brief, and as an executive assistant to CIA Director George J. Tenet.

Before assuming his current position, Mr. Morell was the CIA’s Deputy Director under David H. Petraeus. Mr. Morell began serving as Deputy Director in May 2010 under Mr. Panetta, after spending two years as the head of the Agency’s main analytic arm, the Directorate of Intelligence. Before that job, Mr. Morell served as the CIA’s Associate Deputy Director from 2006 until 2008, helping with the overall leadership of the Agency and focusing in particular on its internal management.

https://www.cia.gov/about-cia/leadership/michael-j.-morell.html

hmmm, doesn't sound like a "yes" man to me.

But seriously I would believe McInsane way before this guy.

 

[emptystep]

Here's question. If the Obama administration screwed up so bad and got Americans killed in Benghazi and did nothing to save them why is the intel community not raising a fire storm. Why is the current CIA director going with Rice to meet the the gang of three (still working on the right word here)? I thought the military hated Obama? Not a single one coming out against the administration?

Let me see if I've got this straight? You're actually amazed that the new CIA Director...someone who was just appointed by Barack Obama...is going with Rice to answer questions? Were you naive enough to think that Barry would appoint someone who WOULDN'T go along with the narrative they're trying to sell?

Gotta tell you, Empty...some of your posts show you to be, shall we say...not the sharpest tool in the shed?

Oh and by the way? The CIA is not the military.

So this guy is selling out the CIA?
--------
Meet Michael J. Morell - The Daily Beast
His CIA career began in 1980, when he was 21-years-old. He was an economic analyst with a salary of $15,193. For 14 years, he served as an analyst and manager of East Asia intelligence, and was promoted to director of the CIA’s office of Asian, Pacific, and Latin American analysis in 1999.

He’s been in the room with the big guys for over a decade. For a time, he served as the executive assistant to former CIA director George J. Tenet, and was in charge of presidential briefings for parts of both Bill Clinton’s and George W. Bush’s presidencies. As chief of the staff that produces the president’s daily brief, his job was to sit down every morning with the president and fill him on the latest intelligence.

He was with President Bush on 9/11.

He was Bush’s intelligence advisor at the time, and, according to The Wall Street Journal, had “been at the center of nearly every fight against al Qaeda and has seen the limits of U.S. intelligence.” As such, he served as “the CIA’s devil’s advocate before the raid on Osama bin Laden’s hideout in Pakistan.”

BlindBoo, I beat you to the punch but you went straight to the CIA site so I will give the point to you.

 

[BlindBoo]

Let me see if I've got this straight? You're actually amazed that the new CIA Director...someone who was just appointed by Barack Obama...is going with Rice to answer questions? Were you naive enough to think that Barry would appoint someone who WOULDN'T go along with the narrative they're trying to sell?

Gotta tell you, Empty...some of your posts show you to be, shall we say...not the sharpest tool in the shed?

Oh and by the way? The CIA is not the military.

Mr. Morell began his Agency career in 1980 as an analyst covering international energy issues. He later worked on East Asia for 14 years, holding a number of jobs in analysis and in management before his selection in 1999 as Director of the Office of Asian Pacific and Latin American Analysis. He also served as the intelligence briefer to President George W. Bush, as chief of the staff that produces the President’s Daily Brief, and as an executive assistant to CIA Director George J. Tenet.

Before assuming his current position, Mr. Morell was the CIA’s Deputy Director under David H. Petraeus. Mr. Morell began serving as Deputy Director in May 2010 under Mr. Panetta, after spending two years as the head of the Agency’s main analytic arm, the Directorate of Intelligence. Before that job, Mr. Morell served as the CIA’s Associate Deputy Director from 2006 until 2008, helping with the overall leadership of the Agency and focusing in particular on its internal management.

https://www.cia.gov/about-cia/leadership/michael-j.-morell.html

hmmm, doesn't sound like a "yes" man to me.

But seriously I would believe McInsane way before this guy.

 

[BlindBoo]

Let me see if I've got this straight? You're actually amazed that the new CIA Director...someone who was just appointed by Barack Obama...is going with Rice to answer questions? Were you naive enough to think that Barry would appoint someone who WOULDN'T go along with the narrative they're trying to sell?

Gotta tell you, Empty...some of your posts show you to be, shall we say...not the sharpest tool in the shed?

Oh and by the way? The CIA is not the military.

So this guy is selling out the CIA?
--------
Meet Michael J. Morell - The Daily Beast
His CIA career began in 1980, when he was 21-years-old. He was an economic analyst with a salary of $15,193. For 14 years, he served as an analyst and manager of East Asia intelligence, and was promoted to director of the CIA’s office of Asian, Pacific, and Latin American analysis in 1999.

He’s been in the room with the big guys for over a decade. For a time, he served as the executive assistant to former CIA director George J. Tenet, and was in charge of presidential briefings for parts of both Bill Clinton’s and George W. Bush’s presidencies. As chief of the staff that produces the president’s daily brief, his job was to sit down every morning with the president and fill him on the latest intelligence.

He was with President Bush on 9/11.

He was Bush’s intelligence advisor at the time, and, according to The Wall Street Journal, had “been at the center of nearly every fight against al Qaeda and has seen the limits of U.S. intelligence.” As such, he served as “the CIA’s devil’s advocate before the raid on Osama bin Laden’s hideout in Pakistan.”

BlindBoo, I beat you to the punch but you went straight to the CIA site so I will give the point to you.

You did. I just saw that. Good for you and thanks.

 

[beagle9]

Obama's defense of Rice was that she had nothing to do with Benghazi. Which obviously raises some questions. If she didn't have nothing to do with Benghazi then why in the hell was she out in front? Why did she obviously tell us what was not true, five times? The very, very obvious answer is that Hillary wouldn't do it. At least she has that much integrity. Was she promised Hillary's job if she did the dirty work of the administration? The point of defending her has long pasted. It is obvious she was told to mislead the American people as Obama did to the world when he addressed the UN general assembly.

Good point....Would you put someone out in front that did'nt know what they were talking about ?

I remember her speaking to us about this situation on TV, and it seemed as if her body langage or facial expressions were tense and hiding something more, or that she may have been pumping up the video rhetoric for someone, but why ? Why was the dems going after this video and this video guy like they knew he was behind it all (crucifying him) to the fullest extent they could, only to have to eat their words and accusations later on big time, especially once it was found out that it was a coordinated terrorist attack instead?

And as usual they (the dems) revert back to Bush for the blame game as per comparrisons in life, even though Bush's issue is a seperated one that was scrutinized big time by the dems, and this when his issue came about during his time, so why the attempted distractions by using Bush's period in office as (yes) yet another distraction for what has went on during this office ? It gets old this comparing with Bush always or to blame him, (i.e. the Bush man fall back game that goes on). I mean what would Obama and crew do without Bush ? They use him to power up or they use him to distract with or they use him to block with or they use him to cover themselves up with or they just use him just to use him. I thought Bush was done being President back in 08 ?

 

[Freewill]

Obama's defense of Rice was that she had nothing to do with Benghazi. Which obviously raises some questions. If she didn't have nothing to do with Benghazi then why in the hell was she out in front? Why did she obviously tell us what was not true, five times? The very, very obvious answer is that Hillary wouldn't do it. At least she has that much integrity. Was she promised Hillary's job if she did the dirty work of the administration? The point of defending her has long pasted. It is obvious she was told to mislead the American people as Obama did to the world when he addressed the UN general assembly.

Good point....Would you put someone out in front that did'nt know what they were talking about ?

I remember her speaking to us about this situation on TV, and it seemed as if her body langage or facial expressions were tense and hiding something more, or that she may have been pumping up the video rhetoric for someone, but why ? Why was the dems going after this video and this video guy like they knew he was behind it all (crucifying him) to the fullest extent they could, only to have to eat their words and accusations later on big time, especially once it was found out that it was a coordinated terrorist attack instead.

And as usual they (the dems) revert back to Bush for the blame game as per comparrisons in life, even though Bush's issue is a seperated one that was scrutinized big time by the dems, and this when his issue came about during his time, so why the attempted distractions by using Bush's period in office as (yes) yet another distraction for what has went on during this office ? It gets old this comparing with Bush always or to blame him, (i.e. the Bush man fall back game that goes on). I mean what would Obama and crew do without Bush ? They use him to power up or they use him to distract with or they use him to block with or they use him to cover themselves up with or they just use him just to use him. I thought Bush was done being President back in 08 ?

The reason to put someone like Rice out there could be for two reasons. One, test her loyalty. Two, plausible deniability, which is what happened. Rice repeated the WH talking points and when proved to be completely wrong Obama steps up, as if a knight in shining armor, and defends Rice. Which I am thinking was their way of covering for her lying.

Bottom line, Hillary had enough of the lying and would not do it. Maybe because she was so deep into it that if she said one more lie it would doom her for the rest of her career.

 

[beagle9]

Obama's defense of Rice was that she had nothing to do with Benghazi. Which obviously raises some questions. If she didn't have nothing to do with Benghazi then why in the hell was she out in front? Why did she obviously tell us what was not true, five times? The very, very obvious answer is that Hillary wouldn't do it. At least she has that much integrity. Was she promised Hillary's job if she did the dirty work of the administration? The point of defending her has long pasted. It is obvious she was told to mislead the American people as Obama did to the world when he addressed the UN general assembly.

Good point....Would you put someone out in front that did'nt know what they were talking about ?

I remember her speaking to us about this situation on TV, and it seemed as if her body langage or facial expressions were tense and hiding something more, or that she may have been pumping up the video rhetoric for someone, but why ? Why was the dems going after this video and this video guy like they knew he was behind it all (crucifying him) to the fullest extent they could, only to have to eat their words and accusations later on big time, especially once it was found out that it was a coordinated terrorist attack instead.

And as usual they (the dems) revert back to Bush for the blame game as per comparrisons in life, even though Bush's issue is a seperated one that was scrutinized big time by the dems, and this when his issue came about during his time, so why the attempted distractions by using Bush's period in office as (yes) yet another distraction for what has went on during this office ? It gets old this comparing with Bush always or to blame him, (i.e. the Bush man fall back game that goes on). I mean what would Obama and crew do without Bush ? They use him to power up or they use him to distract with or they use him to block with or they use him to cover themselves up with or they just use him just to use him. I thought Bush was done being President back in 08 ?

The reason to put someone like Rice out there could be for two reasons. One, test her loyalty. Two, plausible deniability, which is what happened. Rice repeated the WH talking points and when proved to be completely wrong Obama steps up, as if a knight in shining armor, and defends Rice. Which I am thinking was their way of covering for her lying.

Bottom line, Hillary had enough of the lying and would not do it. Maybe because she was so deep into it that if she said one more lie it would doom her for the rest of her career.

I was about to call you a racist, but you saved yourself when you threw Hillary in there...LOL

I don't think that the race card can be thrown by them at this point either, but that don't stop them from doing it any other time, so get ready for the ultimate trump card, I mean if things heat up to badly for them. Oh wait they already used it to no affect, so get ready for round two of the almighty race card slinging maybe...LOL

 

[Oldstyle]

When did I ever say that Morell is "selling out" the CIA? My guess is the truth is the opposite of that. I would expect that Mr. Morell is doing his level best to turn this into a win for the CIA. One method of doing that is playing ball with the guy who is running the country. Barack Obama is a Chicago Machine politician...he understands the need to repay debts to those who do you a favor.

 

[Mustang]

Obama's defense of Rice was that she had nothing to do with Benghazi. Which obviously raises some questions. If she didn't have nothing to do with Benghazi then why in the hell was she out in front? Why did she obviously tell us what was not true, five times? The very, very obvious answer is that Hillary wouldn't do it. At least she has that much integrity. Was she promised Hillary's job if she did the dirty work of the administration? The point of defending her has long pasted. It is obvious she was told to mislead the American people as Obama did to the world when he addressed the UN general assembly.

Good point....Would you put someone out in front that did'nt know what they were talking about ?

I remember her speaking to us about this situation on TV, and it seemed as if her body langage or facial expressions were tense and hiding something more, or that she may have been pumping up the video rhetoric for someone, but why ? Why was the dems going after this video and this video guy like they knew he was behind it all (crucifying him) to the fullest extent they could, only to have to eat their words and accusations later on big time, especially once it was found out that it was a coordinated terrorist attack instead.

And as usual they (the dems) revert back to Bush for the blame game as per comparrisons in life, even though Bush's issue is a seperated one that was scrutinized big time by the dems, and this when his issue came about during his time, so why the attempted distractions by using Bush's period in office as (yes) yet another distraction for what has went on during this office ? It gets old this comparing with Bush always or to blame him, (i.e. the Bush man fall back game that goes on). I mean what would Obama and crew do without Bush ? They use him to power up or they use him to distract with or they use him to block with or they use him to cover themselves up with or they just use him just to use him. I thought Bush was done being President back in 08 ?

The reason to put someone like Rice out there could be for two reasons. One, test her loyalty. Two, plausible deniability, which is what happened. Rice repeated the WH talking points and when proved to be completely wrong Obama steps up, as if a knight in shining armor, and defends Rice. Which I am thinking was their way of covering for her lying.

Bottom line, Hillary had enough of the lying and would not do it. Maybe because she was so deep into it that if she said one more lie it would doom her for the rest of her career.

1. The WH is not high school. Consequently, Rice's loyalty was not being tested.

2. Rice presented the prevailing administration view based on the best available intelligence at the time. This shouldn't be difficult to understand just a few short days after the attack since there were numerous demonstrations/riots going on related to the video AND because our gov't STILL does not have a clear understanding to this day of who was responsible for the attack. Consequently, Obama is not rushing to her defense based on some nonsensical supposition of 'plausible deniability.' Rather, Obama is defending her because her statement is being unfairly characterized by people who are trying to create a political controversy where there is none.

 

[Plasmaball]

what part of intended baffles you?

...that with all of these elite Ivy Leaguers running the country and receiving warnings and pleas from those eventually killed, the best immediate "explanation" they can come up with is a You Tube Video.

i bet you voted for bush and then Romney. Guess where they went to school..

 

[Freewill]

Good point....Would you put someone out in front that did'nt know what they were talking about ?

I remember her speaking to us about this situation on TV, and it seemed as if her body langage or facial expressions were tense and hiding something more, or that she may have been pumping up the video rhetoric for someone, but why ? Why was the dems going after this video and this video guy like they knew he was behind it all (crucifying him) to the fullest extent they could, only to have to eat their words and accusations later on big time, especially once it was found out that it was a coordinated terrorist attack instead.

And as usual they (the dems) revert back to Bush for the blame game as per comparrisons in life, even though Bush's issue is a seperated one that was scrutinized big time by the dems, and this when his issue came about during his time, so why the attempted distractions by using Bush's period in office as (yes) yet another distraction for what has went on during this office ? It gets old this comparing with Bush always or to blame him, (i.e. the Bush man fall back game that goes on). I mean what would Obama and crew do without Bush ? They use him to power up or they use him to distract with or they use him to block with or they use him to cover themselves up with or they just use him just to use him. I thought Bush was done being President back in 08 ?

The reason to put someone like Rice out there could be for two reasons. One, test her loyalty. Two, plausible deniability, which is what happened. Rice repeated the WH talking points and when proved to be completely wrong Obama steps up, as if a knight in shining armor, and defends Rice. Which I am thinking was their way of covering for her lying.

Bottom line, Hillary had enough of the lying and would not do it. Maybe because she was so deep into it that if she said one more lie it would doom her for the rest of her career.

1. The WH is not high school. Consequently, Rice's loyalty was not being tested.

2. Rice presented the prevailing administration view based on the best available intelligence at the time. This shouldn't be difficult to understand just a few short days after the attack since there were numerous demonstrations/riots going on related to the video AND because our gov't STILL does not have a clear understanding to this day of who was responsible for the attack. Consequently, Obama is not rushing to her defense based on some nonsensical supposition of 'plausible deniability.' Rather, Obama is defending her because her statement is being unfairly characterized by people who are trying to create a political controversy where there is none.

What was the immediate known difference between what happened in Benghazi and elsewhere? Right, no where else were the type of weapons used nor was anyone drug through the streets and killed. That much is immediately known. It is undeniable that there was a 7 hour firefight in which 4 people got murdered.

So let's say you are completely correct and they didn't know what was going on and still don't. then explain why they blamed it on a video and you know they did. Obama more or less came right and said it in a prepared speech before the UN.

What they could have said is they don't know the extent of the attacks and will report them when they know more. Instead how many riots or protests might they have caused because they put the video front and center.

Just because you don't want a scandal doesn't mean there isn't one, and just because some want a scandal doesn't mean is one. All I would like is a real explanation of why they mislead the American people.

 

[beagle9]

Lets just hope that the will of the Egyptions who want a real democracy and more freedom like Americans have, "wins" out over the muslims /muslim brotherhood, and their sharia law over there. We here in this nation need to take heed of the goings on in the middle east big time, and make sure that this kind of thing isn't on it's way here soon or is already here. We shall soon see how all of this is going to play out in America, and how many more lies will accomodate the move towards fundamentally changing America, but into what ?

The extreme fundamentalist U.S. of A now ?

America be very aware of everything now that is about to take place, and begin to think about what you will lose and how little you will gain anymore while trying to move forward in this nation now, and this no matter what you do in America to be coming soon. Just think, your grown children foolishly voted for this sort of thing, along with the terminally dependent, uneducated, and the undocumented etc. while you were out working like a dog the last 30 years, it was being set up against you over time. wow ! Would be real funny if didn't have to cry first, so just go on and have a real good cry America, and might best get used to crying alot in the coming future, cuz the landscape is changing and changing fast in America, along with the American culture. Soon it will be foriegn unto you, and you unto it. It has already started..