Lyndsey Graham Who Was Directly Lied To Says House Benghazi Report Full of C R A P

[Oldstyle]

It's a simple question, Kiddies! If they weren't deliberately lying...then why reclassify the Rhodes email to "Top Secret" and hide it from Congress?

Specifically, what is in the Rhodes email that is a lie?

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/1919_production-4-17-14.pdf#page=14

And the line that the Obama White House obviously didn't want coming to light from the Rhodes email is as follows:

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

 

[Claudette]

The administration was full of excuses and lied its collective ass off.

They had months of warnings that an attack was coming. Hell. The Brits and the Red Cross pulled out because of those same warnings.

The anniverary of 9-11 was coming up and anyone but a brain dead moron could pretty well take a guess about when the attack would come.

State had months of request for beefed up security. They knew about the warnings and did absofuckinglutely nothing.

When the attack came they then sent Rice out to lie her ass off about a video being the cause of the attack.

Benghazi was something that didn't need to happen. Four good men are dead because Obamas State Department headed by Hilbat did nothing.

Four dead men didn't stop Barry Boy from jetting off to his fundraiser in Vegas. That right there should tell anyone how much the deaths of those men meant to that asshole. Absolutely nothing. His fund raiser was more important.

You can deflect to what Romney said or did all you want but Romney isn't the POTUS. Barry is and the buck stops right at his desk.

Four good men are dead because of an incompetant Obama State Department. And Barry's administration lied its ass off.

Oh, knock it off.

Time for another fake Obama scandal - this one is kaput!

The truth hurts I know but you need to put your big boy pants on.

Its easy really.

The administration lied its ass off about Benghazi simply because of Barry's re-election. Not rocket science Just the truth.

 

[BlindBoo]

It's a simple question, Kiddies! If they weren't deliberately lying...then why reclassify the Rhodes email to "Top Secret" and hide it from Congress?

Specifically, what is in the Rhodes email that is a lie?

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/1919_production-4-17-14.pdf#page=14

And the line that the Obama White House obviously didn't want coming to light from the Rhodes email is as follows:

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

Understandable considering how the Echo-chamber distorts things. They would likely try and say that the email was exclusively about Benghazi and not the protests happening around the world. Which is exactly what happened. I mean look at you, you still think the WH blamed a the video for the attack and not the extremist who carried it out.

These are the protest the email was referring to.

Timeline Protests over anti-Islam video - Middle East - Al Jazeera English

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Clau 10279690

The administration lied its ass off about Benghazi simply because of Barry's re-election. Not rocket science Just the truth.

You need to build a case based on the facts and transcripts from people involved. Oldstyle has tried to do that but is failing miserably. The Republicans in the House do not have the luxury of making things up and passing it off as fact and hoping to get away with it as Oldstyle has been doing here. That is why the GOP report has accepted that there is no there there. No lies, no coverup, no false narrative, no stand down orders. None of it. You can call GOP investigators stupid or lying or corrupt politicians siding with Obama, but that is .kind of silly if you ask me.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

OS 10279460

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

Do you realize how silly you have been on this thread yet? That line is talking about all protests with an "s" at the end. . Its not about a singular event such as what happened at Benghazi.

That statement is true. There is no reason to hide the email on which it was written.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

"we are not to generate statements with assessments as to who did this"


Important to know:

In an internal agency e-mail at 4:24 p.m.that Friday, he acknowledged that “there is a hurry to get this out.” The talking points should not “conflict with express instructions” from the National Security Council, the FBI and the Justice Department, he wrote, and that “in light of the criminal investigation, we are not to generate statements with assessments as to who did this.”

This link provides an excellent background on the development and progression of the CIA talking points.

Petraeus’s role in drafting Benghazi talking points raises questions

Petraeus s role in drafting Benghazi talking points raises questions - The Washington Post

 

[Oldstyle]

It's a simple question, Kiddies! If they weren't deliberately lying...then why reclassify the Rhodes email to "Top Secret" and hide it from Congress?

Specifically, what is in the Rhodes email that is a lie?

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/1919_production-4-17-14.pdf#page=14

And the line that the Obama White House obviously didn't want coming to light from the Rhodes email is as follows:

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

Understandable considering how the Echo-chamber distorts things. They would likely try and say that the email was exclusively about Benghazi and not the protests happening around the world. Which is exactly what happened. I mean look at you, you still think the WH blamed a the video for the attack and not the extremist who carried it out.

These are the protest the email was referring to.

Timeline Protests over anti-Islam video - Middle East - Al Jazeera English

I'm well aware that there were other protests that took place around the Middle East, Boo. The Obama White House was aware of that also. It's why they went with the narrative they did...that Benghazi was about a protest over a YouTube video that escalated into an attack on our consulate. The reason that the Obama folks did their level best to hide the Rhodes email and the 12 revisions to the initial talking points that the State Department and the White House forced the intelligence community to make is that they didn't want anyone to SEE how they deliberately deceived both Congress and the American people and the reasons behind that deception!

 

[Oldstyle]

OS 10279460

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

Do you realize how silly you have been on this thread yet? That line is talking about all protests with an "s" at the end. . Its not about a singular event such as what happened at Benghazi.

That statement is true. There is no reason to hide the email on which it was written.

Then explain why the email WAS hidden? Explain why the Obama White House changed it to a Top Secret designation and then refused to turn it over to Congressional investigators who asked for all emails and documents related to Benghazi?

 

[Oldstyle]

"we are not to generate statements with assessments as to who did this"


Important to know:

In an internal agency e-mail at 4:24 p.m.that Friday, he acknowledged that “there is a hurry to get this out.” The talking points should not “conflict with express instructions” from the National Security Council, the FBI and the Justice Department, he wrote, and that “in light of the criminal investigation, we are not to generate statements with assessments as to who did this.”

This link provides an excellent background on the development and progression of the CIA talking points.

Petraeus’s role in drafting Benghazi talking points raises questions

Petraeus s role in drafting Benghazi talking points raises questions - The Washington Post

Only one problem with your scenario that it was David Petraeus who was behind all of the revisions of the CIA talking points, Notfooled...you can look at the emails coming out State from Victoria Nuland that the people above her were upset about the wording of the talking points because...as Nuland put it...they could be used to "beat up" the State Department on it's policies. Petraeus didn't order those revisions...those revisions were done to make the Hillary Clinton State Department happy and the Obama White House happy.

 

[Claudette]

Clau 10279690

The administration lied its ass off about Benghazi simply because of Barry's re-election. Not rocket science Just the truth.

You need to build a case based on the facts and transcripts from people involved. Oldstyle has tried to do that but is failing miserably. The Republicans in the House do not have the luxury of making things up and passing it off as fact and hoping to get away with it as Oldstyle has been doing here. That is why the GOP report has accepted that there is no there there. No lies, no coverup, no false narrative, no stand down orders. None of it. You can call GOP investigators stupid or lying or corrupt politicians siding with Obama, but that is .kind of silly if you ask me.

It wasn't made up. The CIA said it was a terrorist attack from the get go. Rice went out and spewed the Administrations line.

Simple really. They didn't want anything to detract from Barry or his re-election.

They spewed that same lie about the video for weeks. If you were watching the TV you saw and heard it just like I did.

Its kinda silly that you keep pushing your take on things and have no use for the truth.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

It wasn't made up. The CIA said it was a terrorist attack from the get go. Rice went out and spewed the Administrations line.

So did Obama the day afterward. Rice said it was extremists with heavy weapons that committed the attack in Benghazi not protestors. So you are making stuff up.

 

[Oldstyle]

Still can't come up with a reason why the White House reclassified the Ben Rhodes email...can you, Notfooled?

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Only one problem with your scenario that it was David Petraeus who was behind all of the revisions of the CIA talking points, Notfooled...

Why can't you read anything with comprehension? Petraeus was not behind all of the revisions. No one is saying that. It was in bold letters. I guess we have to provide bigger font for you:

Petraeus’s role in drafting Benghazi talking points​

Petraeus put together the draft that the CIA sent out. That Petraeus draft contained the words - spontaneous demonstrations evolving into an attack - into the very first CIA original draft of the CIA talking points. He didn't participate in the revisions that dealt with other issues. And that 'spontaneous demonstration' language stayed in the talking points. It was not forced in. And it was not forced out. -

You need to stop making things up as if the White House forced Petraeus to put that in there. He did it all on his own - and from the very start. The White House or State Department had nothing to do with putting spontaneous demonstrations evolving into an attack. into the CIA talking points.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Still can't come up with a reason why the White House reclassified the Ben Rhodes email...can you, Notfooled?

You have not produced a reason why the White House would have found it necessary to reclassify the email. We know Obama said it was an act of terror on day two. Are you talking about (*The Rhodes email was sent on sent on Friday, September 14, 2012, at 8:09 p.m. with the subject line: “RE: PREP CALL with Susan, Saturday at 4:00 pm ET.”*

* Judicial Watch Benghazi Documents Point to White House on Misleading Talking Points - Judicial Watch


Judicial Watch also says something that is not true or is not established by any facts. They wrote, " The documents show that the “prep” was for Amb. Rice’s Sunday news show appearances to discuss the Benghazi attack." That 'prep' was not to discuss the Benghazi attack. It is prep to talk about the video and the violent protests that erupted around the world. Rice said what the CIA said to say about the Benghazi attack. Judicial watch is corrupt and most likely shilling for contributions by trying to glamorize an email they got that is not at all glamorous or some kind of smoking gun. But they convinced plenty who prefer to be fooled about these things than know the facts. .

The Rhodes email does not mention Benghazi so there was not reason to send to the Committee that was investigating Benghazi. The Committee was not investigating the video or the protests that the video ignited.

So there is one of several reasons why the White House didn't submit the Ben Rhodes email with the rest of the Benghazi emails. It didn't refer to the attack at Benghazi at all.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

OS 10278262

The Obama White House knew that there was no protest prior to the attack on our consulate LONG before they finally admitted it!

You have your dream of the big gotcha Obama moment, Oldstyle but the reality that trumps much of your nonsense is that the White House can truthfully say that they 'knew' during the first week after the attack exactly what the CIA 'knew' the first week after the attack. And troubling for your 'gotcha' Oldstyle is that the CIA placed what they 'knew' on the record of the official House Committee that requested those CIA Talking Points' for four days after the attack. The CIA talking point emails destroyed your dream already. You just have not awakened to that realization yet. But it will come. It has too.

You can wish that the CIA's, written knowledge of a spontaneous protest that evolved into a deadly attack, did not exist. But it was written and is on the record.

 

[Oldstyle]

OS 10278262

The Obama White House knew that there was no protest prior to the attack on our consulate LONG before they finally admitted it!

You have your dream of the big gotcha Obama moment, Oldstyle but the reality that trumps much of your nonsense is that the White House can truthfully say that they 'knew' during the first week after the attack exactly what the CIA 'knew' the first week after the attack. And troubling for your 'gotcha' Oldstyle is that the CIA placed what they 'knew' on the record of the official House Committee that requested those CIA Talking Points' for four days after the attack. The CIA talking point emails destroyed your dream already. You just have not awakened to that realization yet. But it will come. It has too.

You can wish that the CIA's, written knowledge of a spontaneous protest that evolved into a deadly attack, did not exist. But it was written and is on the record.

Still can't come up with a reason for them to change the status of that Ben Rhodes email to "Top Secret" and hide if from the Congress...can you, Notfooled? Here's the problem you face, little buddy! You've stated that there was no cover-up but then you can't explain away a rather obvious attempt to do just that by the Obama White House. Nor can you explain away the lies that Jay Carney told about there only being one word of the CIA talking points that was revised and that was for "stylistic" purposes. Victoria Nuland's emails prove that wasn't the case as well as others that have since come to light due to Freedom of Information lawsuits brought against the Obama Administration.

Gotcha' moment? It's just one more "moment" that shows what this Administration is all about.

 

[Oldstyle]

And your claim that the Ben Rhodes email wasn't about what took place the day before in Benghazi is laughable! Rice was getting ready to go out to six Sunday morning news shows to do damage control for the Obama White House and only an IDIOT wouldn't know that she was going to be grilled on Benghazi...where our Ambassador and 3 other Americans were just murdered! The White House claim that they didn't turn over the Ben Rhodes email because it didn't deal with Benghazi is even more amusing. If it really was about OTHER protests in the Middle East then why did they feel the need to reclassify it and then hide it from Congress?

 

[whutTHEYsay]

And your claim that the Ben Rhodes email wasn't about what took place the day before in Benghazi is laughable! Rice was getting ready to go out to six Sunday morning news shows to do damage control for the Obama White House and only an IDIOT wouldn't know that she was going to be grilled on Benghazi...

It might help if you learned how to read. I have made no comment that Rice was not going to be grilled on Benghazi. What the transcripts show is that the Ben Rhodes' email was not specific to the incident at Benghazi, so it is dishonest of you to imply or suggest that it was. The Rhodes email in no way changes the fact that the CIA talking points in their original version is what blames the attacks on a demonstration that evolved into an attack. And the CIA draft of that 'demonstration' talking point came many hours prior to the Rhodes email. The timeline of things also upends your entire argument, Oldstyle. You have the Rhodes email out of order with what Petraeus wrote.

You might also concern yourself that the CIA was still uncertain in January 2013 about the level of planning for the September 11, 2012 attack. And you are supposed to have knowledge that the White House could have been certain about it only five days after the attack without much time or possibility of investigation.

Acting CIA Director Michael Morrell wrote a letter to Senator Diane Feinstein on January 4, 2013 stating that "the nature of the attacks did not involve significant preplanning." A year later the US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence wrote in its January 2014 Report on Benghazi, in regard to Morell's letter that "Although it may never be known with complete certainty, it is possible that the individuals and groups involved in the attacks had not planned on conducting those attacks until that day, meaning that specific tactical warning would have been unlikely.

http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/benghazi2014/benghazi.pdf#page=42


So if it is not certain even to the CIA as of earlier this year, that the :"ndividuals and groups involved in the attacks had not planned on conducting those attacks until" the day of the attack then Susan Rice's repeating of the CIA talking point that the attack was spontaneous is not out of the realm of possibility. It is not a false narrative after all.

 

[Oldstyle]

And your claim that the Ben Rhodes email wasn't about what took place the day before in Benghazi is laughable! Rice was getting ready to go out to six Sunday morning news shows to do damage control for the Obama White House and only an IDIOT wouldn't know that she was going to be grilled on Benghazi...

It might help if you learned how to read. I have made no comment that Rice was not going to be grilled on Benghazi. What the transcripts show is that the Ben Rhodes' email was not specific to the incident at Benghazi, so it is dishonest of you to imply or suggest that it was. The Rhodes email in no way changes the fact that the CIA talking points in their original version is what blames the attacks on a demonstration that evolved into an attack. And the CIA draft of that 'demonstration' talking point came many hours prior to the Rhodes email. The timeline of things also upends your entire argument, Oldstyle. You have the Rhodes email out of order with what Petraeus wrote.

You might also concern yourself that the CIA was still uncertain in January 2013 about the level of planning for the September 11, 2012 attack. And you are supposed to have knowledge that the White House could have been certain about it only five days after the attack without much time or possibility of investigation.

Acting CIA Director Michael Morrell wrote a letter to Senator Diane Feinstein on January 4, 2013 stating that "the nature of the attacks did not involve significant preplanning." A year later the US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence wrote in its January 2014 Report on Benghazi, in regard to Morell's letter that "Although it may never be known with complete certainty, it is possible that the individuals and groups involved in the attacks had not planned on conducting those attacks until that day, meaning that specific tactical warning would have been unlikely.

http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/benghazi2014/benghazi.pdf#page=42


So if it is not certain even to the CIA as of earlier this year, that the :"ndividuals and groups involved in the attacks had not planned on conducting those attacks until" the day of the attack then Susan Rice's repeating of the CIA talking point that the attack was spontaneous is not out of the realm of possibility. It is not a false narrative after all.

It isn't out of the "realm of possibility" that Elvis isn't really dead and HE killed Chris Stevens and the other three in Benghazi, Notfooled...but I'm not betting the farm that's what happened!

Look, the initial CIA assessment was that the attack was a protest that escalated...an assessment that our intelligence community rather quickly realized wasn't the case because there was no protest that took place prior to the attack. Since there was no protest...it's obvious that the large number of attackers didn't just coincidentally show up at our consulate armed with mortars and assault weapons. Nor was it a coincidence that they knew which building would be the one housing our Ambassador. It was well established by our intelligence services within 24 hours that it was a planned attack carried out by Al Queda affiliated forces and not a protest that spiraled out of control yet the White House fought tooth and nail to keep the YouTube video causing a protest as the starting point of the attack in the CIA talking points...with Victoria Nuland at State complaining repeatedly that her higher ups would not be happy with any mentions of Al Queda being involved.

 

[Claudette]

Save your breath and you fingers there South.

NotFooled has definetely been fooled and he prefers the administration take on things rather than what actually happened.

Benghazi didn't have to happen and if State had done its job it wouldn't have happened.

They had plenty of warning that something was up and with the anniversary of 9-11 coming up they should have either beefed up security or pulled out people out. They did nothing and four good men died.

Its just a shame that four good men payed the price for States incompetence and no one at State payed any price.