- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 96,116
- Reaction score
- 33,463
- Location
- SE Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
By Jake Tapper, CNN Chief Washington Correspondent
New documents obtained by conservative watchdog Judicial Watch reinforce that the White House strongly argued that an anti-Muslim video was the reason for the deadly 2012 terror attacks on U.S. compounds in Benghazi.
This was done even though intelligence and diplomatic sources on the ground were more convinced the attacks that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans in eastern Libya were carried out by terrorists and not the spontaneous work of an angry mob.
The new documents can be seen here.
The documents were not included in the initial set of e-mails the White House released last May which show the interagency debate over talking points to go to lawmakers on Capitol Hill.
These newly released documents include “TOPLINE POINTS” in question and answer form, prepared by the national security staff, apparently part of the briefing for Susan Rice, then the U.N. ambassador, in preparation for her appearance on Sunday interview shows.
During the debate over the talking points for Capitol Hill from 2013, Republicans argued that the administration removed specific terror references and stuck to an explanation – later proved untrue – that the attack was result of a spontaneous demonstration over an anti-Muslim film that was produced in the United States. There had been such a demonstration in Cairo.
Sorry American, but according to Media Matters there is nothing new here.Newly released Benghazi documents reinforce that White House was pushing that video was to blame – The Lead with Jake Tapper - CNN.com Blogs
Damn, this just won't go away will it?
Sorry American, but according to Media Matters there is nothing new here.
The Ben Rhodes Email: Fox's New (False) Benghazi Attack | Blog | Media Matters for America
Sorry American, but according to Media Matters there is nothing new here.
The Ben Rhodes Email: Fox's New (False) Benghazi Attack | Blog | Media Matters for America
As you look through your translucent glasses, you won't be happy until Obama is impeached.BTW: Why did Richard Nixon resign the Presidency in 1974 ?
Especially in 1980 with the beginning of the total accumulated debt and the oligarchy created by tax cuts for the rich and deregulation.America sure has lowered the standards for POTUS since then.
Much to your ever-lasting chagrin .Today even a corrupt, incompetent community organiser can occupy the White House.
He resigned because someone told him that if he were impeached by the House, there was likely enough votes in the Senate (67) to remove him from office.Nothing new here, for us who are better informed than others we knew with in days if not with in 24 hours that it was a terrorist attack and had nothing to do with a Youtube video. That the Obama White House was involved in a cover up to hide the incompetencies of Obama and those of his administration to get him through November so he could be given a second chance and reelected.
BTW: Why did Richard Nixon resign the Presidency in 1974 ? America sure has lowered the standards for POTUS since then. Today even a corrupt, incompetent community organiser can occupy the White House.
Newly released Benghazi documents reinforce that White House was pushing that video was to blame – The Lead with Jake Tapper - CNN.com Blogs
Damn, this just won't go away will it?
Sorry American, but according to Media Matters there is nothing new here.
The Ben Rhodes Email: Fox's New (False) Benghazi Attack | Blog | Media Matters for America
That's either the most ironic or most trollish statement I've ever read.
The whole thing baffles me.
If the WH thought that a video was the cause and they were wrong.....so what?
Four Americans were killed in a war zone.
Security in Benghazi wasn't sufficient to fend off this attack.
Our security has been improved since the attack, hopefully.
Doubtful that the Prez's margin of victory was affected at all.:shrug:
Nope, Media Matters dots their "I"s and cross their "T"sWhat complete, blithering hogwash. MM is looking at a smoking gun and calling it an incense candle.eace
Nope, Media Matters dots their "I"s" and cross their "T"s
Nope, Media Matters dots their "I"s and cross their "T"s
He resigned because someone told him that if he were impeached by the House, there was likely enough votes in the Senate (67) to remove him from office.
Nope, Media Matters dots their "I"s and cross their "T"s
Muslim Protests Spread Around the Globe - In Focus - The Atlantic:lamoThey're a fully compromised propaganda outlet.:lamo
Well the information Susan Rice said on those TV shows was the best information we had at the time. And yes, there was a video in the story even today. Not in Benghazi, but in Tripoli. "peaceSo the memo from the WH that was a PREP CALL for Susan Rice which outlines her talking points for her numerous TV appearances that Sunday is just an accident. That she repeated all of the points stated in the memo FROM THE WHITE HOUSE is really coincidental. Damn. You haven't read it, have you? You just ran to MM and took their crap laced pablum for the truth rather than look at the freaking document yourself?
It was a major theme of the BHO reelection campaign that Al Qaeda was on the run and the terror threat was receding. It's not so much that the WH believed a video was the cause. It's that the WH was determined to sell that story to protect their campaign theme.
The question is whether you buy that their "belief" was in good faith. I do not.eace
It was a major theme of the BHO reelection campaign that Al Qaeda was on the run and the terror threat was receding. It's not so much that the WH believed a video was the cause. It's that the WH was determined to sell that story to protect their campaign theme. The question is whether you buy that their "belief" was in good faith. I do not.
Well the information Susan Rice said on those TV shows was the best information we had at the time. And yes, there was a video in the story even today. Not in Benghazi, but in Tripoli. "peace
Well the information Susan Rice said on those TV shows was the best information we had at the time. And yes, there was a video in the story even today. Not in Benghazi, but in Tripoli. "peace
That's absolutely and completely untrue. There was no demonstration in Benghazi - just a terrorist attack, and the WH, the CIA, State, and Pentagon knew it at the time it occurred, and they knew the nature of it as well. Now we know who tried to portray it as something other than what it clearly was. No amount of spinning will change the words recorded on those pages now. It was a deliberate cover up of a foreign policy failure less than a month before the presidential election. Whether or not it would have changed the outcome of the election is not the issue at all.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?