Trey "Conehead" Gowdy, like Issa before him, is an ass........

[Pio1980]

Originally Posted by whell

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/o...628-story.html

The administration looked for an official to go on the Sunday morning talk shows Sept. 16. Ben Rhodes, President Barack Obama's deputy national security adviser, sent a request to Clinton but never heard back. The thankless job fell to Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Rice had little knowledge of the events. She relied in part on background information from Rhodes.

Here the report gets at the politics of Benghazi, because it shows that among Rhodes' talking points to Rice was this specific goal to communicate to the viewing public: "To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy."

In other words: In mid-September 2012, in the wake of a terrorist attack in Libya, with Obama up for re-election in two months and Clinton's own presidential aspirations at risk, the White House sent a lesser representative (Rice) in front of the cameras. Armed with bad information, she insisted that four Americans died as the result of a spontaneous protest — not because of Washington's failure to anticipate a terrorist attack on an isolated U.S. compound in unstable Libya on the anniversary of 9/11.

According to the report, several Libya experts at State flipped out when they heard Rice peddling the demonstration story. "Off the reservation on five networks!" wrote one. "WH (White House) very worried about the politics. This was all their doing," wrote another.

Obama, too, went uncorrected publicly by Clinton when, in several public appearances, he conflated Arab world protests about the video with the terrorist attack in Benghazi. In a Sept. 25 speech at the U.N., Obama cited the video six times.

In my opinion, Gowdy and company soft-pedaled this "lapse". They simply presented these facts as they occurred. First, when it was time to face the media, Clinton we're told, wasn't available when the White House Staff (Rhodes) was calling to coordinate a response. So, the gang that couldn't shoot straight brought out a "lesser representative": Rice.

The fact indicate that the State Dept knew early on that this wasn't a spontaneous uprising in reaction to a video: "still in the early hours of the activity" they knew. The YouTube video narrative appears to have come from Ben Rhodes, who gave it to Susan Rice because the White House wanted to "underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy."

Rice, armed with the video story fiction, spread it all over the media in Sunday morning. I remember watching it, and at the time I was thinking that her story was not at all credible, and wondering why in the hell there were riots going on over a YouTube video that no one had ever hear of before.

We're asked to believe that this was all a great big misunderstanding or miscommunication. Some less than discriminating folks here apparently apparently subscribe to that notion as well:



Yet, this "little misunderstanding" continued long after. Obama spewed the fiction all over the UN over a week later. The State Dept KNEW it was BS. Obama and Hillary appeared together and lied to the families about the attack being about a video as the bodies of the victims arrived back in the US:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSooz2wXpes

Why? It can only be concluded that there was a decision to pedal a lie for political expediency. Rhodes didn't work for Clinton. He worked at the White House. Clinton worked for Obama. Obama would have been fully briefed by the State Dept - Clinton and staff - about what happened in Benghazi, probably almost in real time assuming he answered the phone.

For Obama and Clinton to be willing to pedal such a bald faced lie because of concern over their owner personal political fortunes, to continue to do it as the bodies of the victims are being off-loaded right in front of both of them, and continue to do it afterwards, is just about the most disgusting behavior imaginable.

The 'pubs playing it for politics was the most disgusting behavior imaginable, anything on the admin doesn't compare.
And yet, this still doesn't make the GWD an acceptable alternative.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by whell

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/o...628-story.html

The administration looked for an official to go on the Sunday morning talk shows Sept. 16. Ben Rhodes, President Barack Obama's deputy national security adviser, sent a request to Clinton but never heard back. The thankless job fell to Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Rice had little knowledge of the events. She relied in part on background information from Rhodes.

Here the report gets at the politics of Benghazi, because it shows that among Rhodes' talking points to Rice was this specific goal to communicate to the viewing public: "To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy."

In other words: In mid-September 2012, in the wake of a terrorist attack in Libya, with Obama up for re-election in two months and Clinton's own presidential aspirations at risk, the White House sent a lesser representative (Rice) in front of the cameras. Armed with bad information, she insisted that four Americans died as the result of a spontaneous protest — not because of Washington's failure to anticipate a terrorist attack on an isolated U.S. compound in unstable Libya on the anniversary of 9/11.

According to the report, several Libya experts at State flipped out when they heard Rice peddling the demonstration story. "Off the reservation on five networks!" wrote one. "WH (White House) very worried about the politics. This was all their doing," wrote another.

Obama, too, went uncorrected publicly by Clinton when, in several public appearances, he conflated Arab world protests about the video with the terrorist attack in Benghazi. In a Sept. 25 speech at the U.N., Obama cited the video six times.

In my opinion, Gowdy and company soft-pedaled this "lapse". They simply presented these facts as they occurred. First, when it was time to face the media, Clinton we're told, wasn't available when the White House Staff (Rhodes) was calling to coordinate a response. So, the gang that couldn't shoot straight brought out a "lesser representative": Rice.

The fact indicate that the State Dept knew early on that this wasn't a spontaneous uprising in reaction to a video: "still in the early hours of the activity" they knew. The YouTube video narrative appears to have come from Ben Rhodes, who gave it to Susan Rice because the White House wanted to "underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy."

Rice, armed with the video story fiction, spread it all over the media in Sunday morning. I remember watching it, and at the time I was thinking that her story was not at all credible, and wondering why in the hell there were riots going on over a YouTube video that no one had ever hear of before.

We're asked to believe that this was all a great big misunderstanding or miscommunication. Some less than discriminating folks here apparently apparently subscribe to that notion as well:



Yet, this "little misunderstanding" continued long after. Obama spewed the fiction all over the UN over a week later. The State Dept KNEW it was BS. Obama and Hillary appeared together and lied to the families about the attack being about a video as the bodies of the victims arrived back in the US:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSooz2wXpes

Why? It can only be concluded that there was a decision to pedal a lie for political expediency. Rhodes didn't work for Clinton. He worked at the White House. Clinton worked for Obama. Obama would have been fully briefed by the State Dept - Clinton and staff - about what happened in Benghazi, probably almost in real time assuming he answered the phone.

For Obama and Clinton to be willing to pedal such a bald faced lie because of concern over their owner personal political fortunes, to continue to do it as the bodies of the victims are being off-loaded right in front of both of them, and continue to do it afterwards, is just about the most disgusting behavior imaginable.

An editorial in a conservative newspaper, full of speculation and unfounded speculation.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Boreas

An editorial in a conservative newspaper, full of speculation and unfounded speculation.

Chicago Trib conservative? The same Trib that endorsed Obama twice?

Unfounded speculation? Keep living your lie, pimple.

[donquixote99]

Pio said it right.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by whell

Chicago Trib conservative? The same Trib that endorsed Obama twice?

Unfounded speculation? Keep living your lie, pimple.

The Chicago Tribune believes in the traditional principles of limited government; maximum individual responsibility; minimum restriction of personal liberty, opportunity and enterprise. It believes in free markets, free will and freedom of expression. These principles, while traditionally conservative, are guidelines and not reflexive dogmas.

The Tribune brings a Midwestern sensibility to public debate. It is suspicious of untested ideas.

The Tribune places great emphasis on the integrity of government and the private institutions that play a significant role in society. The newspaper does this in the belief that the people cannot consent to be governed unless they have knowledge of, and faith in, the leaders and operations of government. The Tribune embraces the diversity of people and perspectives in its community. It is dedicated to the future of the Chicago region.

Self-described conservative at that.

[JJIII]

I describe myself as young, strong, and handsome.

[sheltiedave]

So Whell, if this was a result of Clinton/Obama's failed Arab policy in Libya, what policy should we have followed?

Should we have left Quadahfi in power? Should we have installed a puppet? Or was the failed "policy" the fact that we didn't have 100 special forces on the ground, along with ten tanks, five Blackhawks, eight Warthogs, a refueling plane, and a carrier group camped in the eastern Med to support the mission?

You do realize the only thing that would have saved the Ambassador would be having multiple airborne assets available to mow the grass for half an hour, don't you?

[ZeroJunk]

I know you didn't ask me, but Bush's moronic removal of Saddam caused the death and suffering of millions of people more than Saddam's dictatorship.

Then damn if Obama with Hillary didn't do the same thing in Libya and tried in Syria.

And, that has caused the death, mass migration, and suffering of millions more.

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by ZeroJunk

I know you didn't ask me, but Bush's moronic removal of Saddam caused the death and suffering of millions of people more than Saddam's dictatorship.

Then damn if Obama with Hillary didn't do the same thing in Libya and tried in Syria.

And, that has caused the death, mass migration, and suffering of millions more.

Yeah, right.

Like Libya and Syria were fat and happy stable regimes at the time.

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by JJIII

I describe myself as young, strong, and handsome.

put down the bottle man!!!!!!!!!!!!



and get away from the mirror.