What is so hard to understand??? Obama is a black Muslim from Kenya that kills people!!! Don't you get it??? They knew it and now can prove it.. ALLAH AKBAR!!
[rquoter]The Missing Benghazi Email New evidence that Ben Rhodes told Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton to blame the video. April 30, 2014 7:05 p.m. ET Most of the media refuses to cover what happened in Benghazi in 2012, and Congressional Republicans have been less than skillful in their probes. But the story isn't going away despite the best efforts of the Obama Administration and the Hillary for President campaign. The latest revelation comes from White House emails in the days after the September 11, 2012 terrorist strike on the U.S. mission in Libya's second largest city. These emails weren't included last year in what the Administration claimed was a complete set of documents about its handling of the attack and its aftermath. They were released Tuesday after the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act request. We can see why the Administration tried to keep them under wraps. A September 14, 2012 email from Ben Rhodes, the deputy national security adviser for strategic communications, sets out the Administration's view of the cause of the Benghazi attacks. He wrote it to prepare U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. and current national security adviser Susan Rice for her appearances on the Sunday news shows two days later. As Mr. Rhodes wrote, the Administration wanted her "to underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy." In fact the attack on the diplomatic compound and CIA annex was a planned and well-coordinated assault by Islamist groups with ties to al Qaeda that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. Within hours, State and CIA officials at the Embassy in Tripoli, Libya's president and video footage made that clear. Yet the Administration settled on deceptive spin and stuck to it for over a week. Jay Carney, the White House spokesman, on Sept. 14 blamed the attack on a spontaneous protest against an obscure anti-Muslim video posted on YouTube. Two days later, Ms. Rice returned repeatedly to the video in her appearances on the Sunday shows, saying on Fox News that "what sparked the recent violence was the airing on the Internet of a very hateful, very offensive video that has offended many people around the world." Former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton AFP/Getty Images Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also pushed the video fiction, telling the public on Sept. 14 at Andrews Air Force base as the remains of the four dead were returned that, "We have seen rage and violence directed at American Embassies over an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with." The White House also found a scapegoat in the intelligence community, blaming the CIA for drawing up the faulty "talking points" used by Administration officials. Last May it released drafts of emails from the CIA, with input from State and the White House, that spontaneous protests had "evolved into a direct assault." Yet those talking points never mentioned a video, and earlier this month former acting CIA Director Mike Morell said he didn't understand why Ms. Rice had mentioned it. Mr. Rhodes's email provides the answer. The message directive came directly from the White House and was followed to the word. Mr. Rhodes alluded to the video in five spots in his email. On Wednesday, Mr. Carney still insisted Ms. Rice had "relied on points about the Benghazi attack that were produced by the CIA." He must think the press corps is stupid. The Rhodes email shows a White House political operative trying to protect his boss two months before Election Day. Mr. Obama's campaign said al Qaeda was on the run and it was time for "nation-building at home." The terror attack on Americans in Benghazi didn't fit this story. It did, however, expose the "broader failure of policy" (to use Mr. Rhodes's phrase) in North Africa in the wake of the Arab political upheavals in 2011. After the election, the Administration was slow to cooperate with congressional investigations. The "talking points" emails were released last May only after parts were leaked to the press. The Rhodes email was subpoenaed last August, but the White House blocked release until it seemed obvious it would lose its attempts to keep them secret. All of this bears directly on Mrs. Clinton's qualifications to be President. Her State Department overlooked repeated warnings about a growing militant threat in Benghazi, denying requests for improved security. And the father of a CIA contractor told media outlets that Mrs. Clinton tried to comfort him by promising that the maker of the YouTube video would be "prosecuted and arrested," though the video had nothing to do with his son's death. The several congressional investigations into Benghazi have been undermined by turf battles and shoddy work. We long ago advised that a select committee could focus the effort and bring overdue clarity to a shameful episode in American history. It still could.[/rquoter] http://online.wsj.com/news/articles...9533671320855450?mod=hp_opinion&mg=reno64-wsj
Right there is your standard GOP/FAUX "spin". Even with years of "investigation" what is stated as the damning fact here is any but, much less n the real-time the fog of war. The emails by the Deputy National Strategic Communications Advisor appear to be advising on the strategy of communications... that seems like his job, to suggest what should be communicated for containment of the situation, the best image of it to present to color world opinion. The event and the internet movie happened simultaneously on a significant calender date. The assumption in real time was a logical assumption that had to be included in the public information calculus. I myself believe there is real top-secret information concerning the mission The Ambassador was undertaking, the CIA, allegiances and betrayals withing the fluid situation of the Libyan revolution we still don't know and probably won't know. That opinions arises from the question about why the US Ambassador was so exposed in a functional war zone. I think he was set-up and double-crossed by people he thought he could trust. But this "smoking gun" is just people doing their jobs; standard operating procedure, scenario and alternative development. BFD
Jay Carney just said the email didn't have anything to do with Benghazi and that's why it wasn't released or given to Congress. That's not a lie to you? You can see the email above with a section entitled Benghazi. The White House claimed they had no role in drafting the 'caused by a video' talking point. That's not a lie to you? Reading the above email says otherwise. Those are their talking points. Obama can count and you and his other supporters to do the proper mental gymnastics when he is caught lying. It should be insulting to you and his other supporters but its not.
Intresting case study to see if the conservative echo chamber can do anything but keep the dittos worked up over this issue. They keep trying. do they actuallly thing anyone else cares. Maybe it keeps the bassos and tallanovers contributing their hard earned pennies to the GOP?
http://psychcentral.com/news/2012/0...s-even-after-they-are-proven-wrong/45002.html Why Do We Believe Lies Even After They Are Proven Wrong? Why does some misinformation “stick” in the public consciousness? Researchers at The University of Western Australia — who noted several instances of misinformation, such as childhood vaccines cause autism, global warming is a hoax, or President Barack Obama was not born in the United States — say that rejecting information requires more cognitive effort than simply accepting that the message is true. The new study, led by psychologists Drs. Stephan Lewandowsky and Ullrich Ecker, highlights the cognitive factors that make certain pieces of misinformation “stick” and identifies several strategies for “setting the record straight.” Misinformation is especially likely to stick when it conforms to our pre-existing political, religious, or social point of view, according to the researchers. Because of this, ideology and personal worldviews can be especially difficult obstacles to overcome. The report notes that efforts to retract misinformation often backfire and actually lead to the strengthening of an erroneous belief. “This persistence of misinformation has fairly alarming implications in a democracy because people may base decisions on information that, at some level, they know to be false,” Lewandowsky said. “At an individual level, misinformation about health issues — for example, unwarranted fears regarding vaccinations or unwarranted trust in alternative medicine — can do a lot of damage. At a societal level, persistent misinformation about political issues can create considerable harm. “And on a global scale, misinformation about climate change is currently delaying mitigative action.” Though misinformation is difficult to correct, the study highlights several strategies that can help counteract the power of misinformation, including: -Provide people with an alternative account to fill the gap left by the retraction of false information; -Focus on the facts you want to highlight, rather than the myths; -Make sure that the information you want people to take away is simple and brief; -Consider your audience and the beliefs they are likely to hold; and -Strengthen your message through repetition. The report was published in Psychological Science in the Public Interest. Source: The University of Western Australia
I am sorry that is not "insulting" to me, and I am hardly a "supporter" As I said, I have no idea how many briefing memos there were, what were contained in them, who read them, who relayed the information to the administration and if certain memos were given more credence than others. This memo is 3 lines, in probably a much larger size intelligence briefing. It is vague and full of uncertainty. It is no surprise to me that it was not deemed important. PERHAPS if it was some monumental shift in scope covering some major negligence of treasonous act, then the alleged "lie" would matter more to me. The fact of the matter is that whether the attack was cause by terror, a video, or other, the opinion on the matter doesn't change much, so I find little reason to be "insulted". FFS, we had an entire war based off a lie. Where is your ****ing outrage on that? If you want to be taken seriously, show consistency.
Note that nobody here is claiming that there was no inaccurate information given to the American people regarding the situation in Benghazi, what is being claimed is that such inaccurate information hardly rises to a scandalous level. For God's sake, you're talking about statements made about a tragic situation mere days after the event, the "fog of war" explains very clearly why the inaccurate information was plausible and suggested to Rice by the intelligence community.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>. <a href="https://twitter.com/jasoninthehouse">@jasoninthehouse</a> pointing out at <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23Benghazi&src=hash">#Benghazi</a> hearing that CIA station chief, Beth Jones and the top general at Africom all said no protest</p>— Eli Lake (@EliLake) <a href="https://twitter.com/EliLake/statuses/461878780932681729">May 1, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Brig General Lovell, del director of intel for AFRICOM said military deferred to State Department on night of <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23Benghazi&src=hash">#Benghazi</a> attack</p>— Eli Lake (@EliLake) <a href="https://twitter.com/EliLake/statuses/461879069412712448">May 1, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
