White House has now been directly linked to Benghazi cover-up

Here! Argue with ABC.

 

Now you have to shut up. I've told you it was the CIA. I knew you'd weasel out of it because you're a weasel. Clearly, there was a CIA memo. Here it is.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/141740991/White-House-Benghazi-E-mails

 

I read the first 12, and 76, and 86, and 97 and I keep seeing this line;
“spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo”
Aside from trying to smother the facts with BS, please point out were they say the CIA blames the video for the attacks on Benghazi (and not Cairo).

 

You're wasting your time debating with moron joe because, ultimately, his response is going to be "because Obama says so, that's why".

 

He's not listening, RLM. He doesn't know what Benghazi is, he couldn't care less that the Ambassador and his aides were killed, he couldn't care less that there was a cover-up, he's glad the administration pushed a false narrative in order to help Obama win, he wants everyone to forget that Hillary was involved and he hopes the Republicans will stop trying to seek the truth. He's still the same old "Bury My Head In The Sand" JoeNation you're dealing with.

 

ABC's Jonathan Karl And The Proof The White House Memo Wasn't Just About Benghazi

April 30, 2014 ››› MATT GERTZ


ABC's Jonathan Karl, who was previously burned when he pushed falsehoods about CIA talking points generated in the wake of the 2012 Benghazi attacks, is now adopting the conservative distortion of a separate set of talking points authored by the White House for media appearances by then U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice.
On September 16, 2012, Rice appeared on the Sunday political talk shows and suggested that the Benghazi terror attacks had grown out of spontaneous protests like those that were occurring worldwide in response to an anti-Muslim video. Conservatives have claimed that Rice's comments on the Sunday shows were part of a deliberate effort to deceive the American people about the cause of the terror attacks, to bolster President Obama's re-election campaign. This effort has often involved distorting the CIA-approved talking points that Rice used to prepare for the interviews.
Karl came under fire in May 2013 after reporting that the network had "reviewed" emails from administration officials regarding the creation and editing of those CIA-generated talking points. While nothing Karl reported undermined assertions from the CIA that the intelligence community had approved those talking points, Karl suggested that the emails bolstered the conservative critique of the administration's response.
In fact, Karl had never seen the emails in question -- his story was based on "summaries" of the emails and "detailed notes" from a source who, it turned out, had misrepresented what the documents actually said. After media observers slammed Karl's "sloppy" reporting, ABC News issued a statement saying that the network "should have been more precise in its sourcing of those quotes, attributing them to handwritten copies of the emails taken by a Congressional source. We regret that error." Karl himself apologized in a statement to CNN.
Now Karl is returning to the subject of talking points used to prepare Rice for those September 16, 2012, interviews, seizing on a separate email authored by Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes that was released yesterday. The email details "Goals" and "Top-lines" for Rice's interviews and provides sample questions and answers.
Conservatives have fixated on one of Rhodes' recommendations for the interviews, detailing one of the goals as "To underscore that these protests are rooted in an internet video and not a broader failure of policy." Conservatives claim this is evidence the White House was seeking to deliberately mislead the public by blaming Benghazi on the anti-Muslim video rather than terrorism in the region.
In what Mediaite described as a "heated back and forth" during the April 30 White House Press Briefing, Karl hyped this false attack, repeatedly challenging White House Press Secretary Jay Carney over the Rhodes email and Rice's interviews.
During their exchange, Carney sought to make clear that the Rhodes email was not just about the Benghazi attacks but was a more extensive document detailing the situation in the Middle East more broadly, and thus that the comment that "these protests are rooted in an internet video" was not about Benghazi specifically. According to Carney, Rice depended on the CIA talking points for information on Benghazi and the White House talking points for other topics.
Conservative media have been quick to use the exchange to attack Carney and the White House. But the White House documents upon which Karl based his misleading questions support Carney's argument.
Promos For The Sunday Shows Suggested The Interviews Would Cover The Middle East Broadly

During his exchange with Carney, Karl said, "you knew full well that these Sunday show appearances were going to be dominated by the attack in Benghazi, right? As they were." Karl's question suggested that the reference to "protests... rooted in an internet video" had to have been specifically about Benghazi.
Carney responded by noting that ABC's own promo for their interview with Rice had highlighted "American embassies throughout the region [that] remain under fire." He went on to say that Q and As like the one produced by Rhodes are always based on "what we think they're going to be asked."
The White House documents upon which Karl relies supports this claim. Rhodes' email came in response to an email from a White House communications staffer providing the promos each network show was using to promote their Rice interviews. Three of the promos mentioned the Benghazi attacks in the broader context of anti-U.S. protests in the Middle East; the fourth did not mention Benghazi at all.

Rhodes Email Devoted Little Attention To Benghazi

During the exchange with Karl, Carney explained of the Rhodes email:

If you look at that document, that document that we're talking about today was about the overall environment in the Muslim world -- the protests outside of Khartoum -- the embassy in Khartoum, outside of the embassy in Tunis, the protests outside of the embassy in Cairo. These were big stories. These were -- this was a big problem. And this was an ongoing story through that weekend when Ambassador Rice appeared on the Sunday shows. So to suggest that we wouldn't have answers to questions about those situations -- and unless you're telling me now that those protests didn't have anything to do with the video, it was entirely appropriate to have a question-and-answer document prepared for the video.​

​

Indeed, when the email was sent, there were global anti-American protests in response to the video, often violent, many of which targeted U.S. diplomatic security posts, including in Egypt, Indonesia, Qatar, Pakistan, Sudan, Bangladesh, and Yemen.
Rhodes' email covers a lot of ground, and largely discusses broader Middle East issues rather than Benghazi specifically. None of the four "Goals" or six "Top-lines" in the email mention Benghazi specifically.
There are only two direct references to Benghazi in the email.
In response the sample question "Are you concerned that our relationship with Egypt and other Muslim Countries is quickly deteriorating? Is the Arab Spring now about hatred of America? Did President Obama lost the Arab World?" Rhodes provides a five paragraph sample answer that references the "full cooperation" that the United States has received from the Libyan government in the wake of the Benghazi attack.
The sole sample answer directly about Benghazi does not deal with the causes or identity of the attackers, but rather notes that there was no "actionable intelligence" leading up to the terror attack.
The Material On Benghazi Was Based On The CIA's Assessment Of The Attacks

In response to Karl's claim that the Rhodes email was Rice's "prep for the Sunday shows," Carney said that "It wasn't her only prep... she relied for her answers on Benghazi on the document provided by the CIA, as did members of Congress."
Indeed, the only substantive information specifically about Benghazi in the Rhodes email was the response to the question about actionable intelligence, which stated that "the currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US Consulate and subsequently its annex."
That language is identical to the initial draft of the separate CIA talking points that were being crafted by CIA analysts earlier that day, suggesting that Rhodes had seen that early document and was using it to ensure the administration's statements were consistent with the intelligence community's conclusions.

 

A complete non-story once again. Keep trying guys. Maybe one day.

 

Just like Watergate. It is not the crime that caused the problem, but the coverups and lies.

 

drip...drip...drip...

 

Oh really??? And let us suppose for a brief instant that there was some sort of "cover up" of some version of the Benghazi tragedy the that Right wing keeps exploiting for political purposes, and everything you hypothesized about was 100% truth...Supposedly. Now here is my question for you conspiracy nuts.... We know for absolute certain that Reagan struck a deal with the Iranians to not release the U.S. hostages until after the election so that he could beat Carter and yet nothing came of that. We know for certain that Nixon's sabotaging of the Vietnam War peace talks happened. We know that Bush had advanced notice that the Yellow Cake lie he pushed was false and his retribution against Valerie Plame got us into Iraq on a lie and yet nothing happened. So knock yourselves out.

 

You mean the ones WJC talked about? Now back to the topic, who started the lie that Benghazi was due to that video.?

 

Does anyone else find it troubling BO would send an assault team to confiscate a guy's cattle but wouldn't lift a finger to help our people in Benghazi?

 

Meanwhile, Democrats know that republicans deliberately made the accusation to mislead the voters in an attempt to win the November Presidential election.

When they failed to secure the Presidency, they continued the accusations, at a not-insignificant cost to tax-payer's $$$, because their mentality is like that of an obstinate child, one who refuses to admit it's errors in judgement and, as such, is leading a life that will not benefit society.

 

And this little reality isn't sitting well with them either.

 

drip...drip...drip (and I'm not talking about iqless)

 

In 1980 Carter thought he had reached a deal with newly-elected Iranian President Abdolhassan Bani-Sadr over the release of the fifty-two hostages held by radical students at the American Embassy in Tehran.
Bani-Sadr was a moderate and, as he explained in an editorial for The Christian Science Monitor earlier this year, had successfully run for President on the popular position of releasing the hostages:
"I openly opposed the hostage-taking throughout the election campaign.... I won the election with over 76 percent of the vote.... Other candidates also were openly against hostage-taking, and overall, 96 percent of votes in that election were given to candidates who were against it [hostage-taking]."
Carter was confident that with Bani-Sadr's help, he could end the embarrassing hostage crisis that had been a thorn in his political side ever since it began in November of 1979.
But Carter underestimated the lengths his opponent in the 1980 Presidential election, California Governor Ronald Reagan, would go to screw him over.
Behind Carter's back, the Reagan campaign worked out a deal with the leader of Iran's radical faction - Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini - to keep the hostages in captivity until after the 1980 Presidential election.
This was nothing short of treason. The Reagan campaign's secret negotiations with Khomeini - the so-called "October Surprise" - sabotaged Carter and Bani-Sadr's attempts to free the hostages. And as Bani-Sadr told The Christian Science Monitor in March of this year, they most certainly "tipped the results of the [1980] election in Reagan's favor."
Not surprisingly, Iran released the hostages on January 20, 1981, at the exact moment Ronald Reagan was sworn into office.

 

But Ronnie is their hero?

 

Now back to the topic, who started the lie that Benghazi was due to that video?

 

Another analogy is that republicans are like the local drunk who "wins" street fights and thinks he can win a fight against a professional fighter, like a boxer or MMA fighter.

They get the beating of their life.

Unlike the local street fighter who, after regaining consciousness, quickly and quietly walks away from the ring, republicans stay in the ring and claim they won.

(shrugs) It's entertaining in the short-term, but it's also really sad to see such stupidity go on and on and on.

Brain-damaged republicans don't know any better.

 

...and why didn't BO lift a finger to help our people in the 7+ hours the attack was happening?
Or does that not matter to the left?