Benghazi-gate About To Explode
- Thread starter Dakota Kid
- Start date
The Obama administration just got caught with their pants down. It took a lawsuit for Judicial Watch to get specific emails on Benghazi
..that had not been released to Congress previously. So when the email shows up that ties the White House to the "blame the video" talking point, Carney has to spin it to say the email wasn't about Benghazi. What a joke
..the email had Benghazi in the title 
White House Defends New Benghazi Email | Video - ABC News
Pretty tough to spin your way out when you're caught red handed. About time the mainstream media started to ask the right questions.
White House Defends New Benghazi Email | Video - ABC News
Pretty tough to spin your way out when you're caught red handed. About time the mainstream media started to ask the right questions.
The Obama administration just got caught with their pants down. It took a lawsuit for Judicial Watch to get specific emails on Benghazi…..that had not been released to Congress previously. So when the email shows up that ties the White House to the "blame the video" talking point, Carney has to spin it to say the email wasn't about Benghazi. What a joke…..the email had Benghazi in the title
White House Defends New Benghazi Email | Video - ABC News
Pretty tough to spin your way out when you're caught red handed. About time the mainstream media started to ask the right questions.
I was waiting for this canard to appear in this thread. I'm looking at a PDF of the e-mail message cited by Judicial Watch as "Benghazi documents" right now, and its title is "RE: PREP CALL with Susan: Saturday at 4:00 p.m. ET." No reference to Benghazi occurs until several paragraphs into the message, on the second page of the printout.
Last edited:
I am attaching to this posts images of the four pages of the Rhodes memorandum. Anyone who reads it can see that Jay Carney's characterization of it was completely accurate: it is about protests that have arisen throughout the Arab world in response to that Internet video, and, apart from a passing reference to Libya and Ambassador Stevens, does not mention Benghazi except in this one paragraph at the bottom of the second page:
There is nothing new in the message at all. What is said in it about Benghazi is just what the Administration received in a message from the CIA earlier that day that you can read here (image from this article in Time).
Attachments
If you do not see the blatant cover up of the cover up, then it is because you choose not to. One could argue that they just don't care, but you can not honestly say the White House and State dept did not lie to the American people and cover up the facts.
I get it, you don't want to prosecute your own team. Politics are not much different than college sports. Democrats and Liberals are like Penn St. Obama and his regime are Paterno and Sandusky. No matter how ugly the crime/scandal, you are going to back your guy.
I get it, you don't want to prosecute your own team. Politics are not much different than college sports. Democrats and Liberals are like Penn St. Obama and his regime are Paterno and Sandusky. No matter how ugly the crime/scandal, you are going to back your guy.
You believe absolutely everything the White House says, don't you. You're a sheep.
Bottom line: If this is as benign as Carney suggests then why didn't they turn this email over unredachted last May? Because they didn't want this to be revealed.
Last edited:
Your arguments consist of nothing but personal abuse and repetition of unproved claims, which exposes your utter lack of a factual basis for those claims. I have not only based my claims on specific verifiable facts, but have actually gone to the trouble of reproducing, in this thread, the documents that establish those facts. An effective rebuttal would consist in citing facts that establish a contrary conclusion. You have not done this. You lose.
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2007
- Posts
- 150
- Media
- 2
- Likes
- 282
- Points
- 393
- Location
- San Marcos (Texas, United States)
- Verification
- View
- Sexuality
- 100% Straight, 0% Gay
- Gender
- Male
Is Calboner's document not accurate? If it is, it appears that he is correct. Please explain, Roger and Matt, why he is wrong. What was the "lie" that you see?
Please cite one fact that I have denied and that you can prove.
Aristotle says that one of the aims of controversy is to drive one's opponent to "babble." I seem to have done that with you, since I have provided facts and documents, while you can offer nothing but bluster and abuse.
To review, Dakota Kid (in #444 above) made these claims:
- The messages obtained by Judicial Watch "tie the White House to the 'blame the video' talking point."
- Jay Carney had to "spin it to say the email wasn't about Benghazi."
- This was "a joke" because "the email had Benghazi in the title."
- The White House has been "caught red handed."
On point 2, the document that I quoted confirms Carney's statement--which, by the way, was not that the document made no reference to Benghazi, but that it was mainly about the protests that broke out in several Arab countries at that time, Libya among them.
On point 3, DK's claim is simply false. Anybody who can read the documents that I posted can see this.
On point 4, neither DK nor anyone else has identified a misdeed in which the White House has been caught.
Your move.
This. We're all adults here and we all have our biases, okay? So let's just admit that the media is totally in the pocket for Obama (and Hillary). They helped create him by telling everyone how super-duper smart and cerebral he was, how "cool" he was and how he was going to fix the economy and all the other problems that nitwit, idiot George W. Bush and his evil mastermind Dick Cheney caused. They sold that line and enough people bought it. They aren't about to turn on him now and make the evil Republicans who always knew this guy was a sham look good. So they don't cover the hearings, or only cover them briefly-and always with a paid Democrat shill chaperone there to piss on it, leaving Fox to be pretty much the only major media outlet to cover Benghazi. They then scapegoat Fox as a "right-wing" looney channel catering to inbred hillbillies and racists so anything that is reported there is nullified. This is and has been the media game plan from day one. These E-mails prove that the Obama White House lied about the cause of Benghazi. They lied to the public and they lied to the families of the victims and they kept on lying and the media cheerfully broadcast those lies and wagged their finger at Mitt Romney for even bringing up the subject. They lied and they kept on lying because there was an election to win and God forbid the story got out that Al Queda was alive and well and causing mayhem at the exact time Obama was still running around spiking the ball over his no-brainer decision to give the order to kill Bin-Laden when Pakistan finally gave him up. They lied and kept on lying because they fucked up by not having the embassy at Benghazi protected on the anniversary of 9-11; they lied and kept on lying because Obama was up for re-election 8 weeks later and they were afraid if the truth got out, that re-election would be in jeopardy; they lied and kept on lying because the truth could stop Hillary Clinton --the anointed next-in-line --from ever becoming president; they lied and kep on lying--and attacking anyone who brought up the subject--because if the truth ever came out, the who carefully constructed edifice of Obama as a uniquely gifted president and the accompanying well-crafted media narrative that goes along with it would tumble to the ground. They lied and kept lying in a way that would make Nixon blush. And for those of you kool-aid drinkers who think that Benghazi was nothing just be honest with yourself for one single minute and ask yourself what you would be saying--and how the media would be covering it--if Benghazi had occurred two months prior to the 2004 election when George W. Bush was running for re-election. I'll answer it for you. You would have been screaming bloody murder--and for the head of Bush. And you would have gotten it.The Obama administration just got caught with their pants down. It took a lawsuit for Judicial Watch to get specific emails on Benghazi ..that had not been released to Congress previously. So when the email shows up that ties the White House to the "blame the video" talking point, Carney has to spin it to say the email wasn't about Benghazi. What a joke ..the email had Benghazi in the title
White House Defends New Benghazi Email | Video - ABC News
Pretty tough to spin your way out when you're caught red handed. About time the mainstream media started to ask the right questions.
You just keep moving the goal posts. In effect you're saying it wasn't about the video but it was about the video and that the WH sent Rice out there to lie, but it wasn't really a lie. Your having it both ways.
In my post #446 above, I quoted the one passage of the message in question that refers to Benghazi. Please explain how it "proves" that the Obama White House lied about the cause of Benghazi. If you don't care to rely on my quotation, you can look at the text of the document in the pages that I reproduced. If you are referring to some other message in the collection obtained by Judicial Watch, then please cite it by page number in the PDF document on the Judicial Watch page to which I provided a link.
In any case, what I am looking for here is factual substantiation of the claims that Dakota Kid and the others have made. I have provided documentary proof of my claims. I have seen no substantiation whatever of yours.
I never denied, nor did Jay Carney ever deny, that the e-mail message contained a reference to Benghazi. I explicitly quoted the part of the message that referred to it. But that was not what the message as a whole was about. No shifting of goal posts.
Here is Carney in the press conference on April 30, from the White House transcript:
Q Jay, I guess you’re aware that Judicial Watch obtained an email from Ben Rhodes to staff members about the Benghazi attack.
MR. CARNEY: That’s incorrect. But go ahead.
Q Oh, okay.
MR. CARNEY: The email and the talking points were not about Benghazi, they were about the general situation in the Muslim world where you saw, as you may recall, protests --
Q It was an email to prepare Susan Rice for those talk shows.
MR. CARNEY: Correct. But you misstated it. In fact, this was not -- it was explicitly not about Benghazi. It was about the overall situation in the region, the Muslim world, where you saw protests outside of embassy facilities across the region, including in Cairo, Sana’a, Khartoum and Tunis. And the so-called talking points around Benghazi, as you know -- because it’s been substantially reported on -- were prepared by the CIA. And in this case, the overall issue of unrest in the Muslim world and the danger posed by these protests to our embassies and our diplomatic facilities was very much a topic in the news when --
Q But the slug of the email says prep call. So, I mean, obviously the thrust --
MR. CARNEY: Right, it was a prep call for --
Q -- the thrust of the reason for the email and the prep call was to prepare Susan Rice for those talk show appearances, which, by and large, were about the attack on the Benghazi mission. And I just wanted to ask you about one portion of it where it says that the point is “to underscore that the protests were rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.” It just seems that there is a political calculation that was being made in these emails that the political considerations were being made in preparing Susan Rice for those appearances.
The e-mail message was about the protests that broke out in several Arab countries, Libya among them, and it contained a mention of Benghazi that followed the information provided to the White House by the CIA.MR. CARNEY: That’s incorrect. But go ahead.
Q Oh, okay.
MR. CARNEY: The email and the talking points were not about Benghazi, they were about the general situation in the Muslim world where you saw, as you may recall, protests --
Q It was an email to prepare Susan Rice for those talk shows.
MR. CARNEY: Correct. But you misstated it. In fact, this was not -- it was explicitly not about Benghazi. It was about the overall situation in the region, the Muslim world, where you saw protests outside of embassy facilities across the region, including in Cairo, Sana’a, Khartoum and Tunis. And the so-called talking points around Benghazi, as you know -- because it’s been substantially reported on -- were prepared by the CIA. And in this case, the overall issue of unrest in the Muslim world and the danger posed by these protests to our embassies and our diplomatic facilities was very much a topic in the news when --
Q But the slug of the email says prep call. So, I mean, obviously the thrust --
MR. CARNEY: Right, it was a prep call for --
Q -- the thrust of the reason for the email and the prep call was to prepare Susan Rice for those talk show appearances, which, by and large, were about the attack on the Benghazi mission. And I just wanted to ask you about one portion of it where it says that the point is “to underscore that the protests were rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.” It just seems that there is a political calculation that was being made in these emails that the political considerations were being made in preparing Susan Rice for those appearances.
Following the conclusions provided by the CIA does not constitute lying. You seem to think that if those conclusions were later proved false, then anyone who took them on the authority of the CIA was a liar. Lying means knowingly asserting an untruth. I have seen no evidence from you or anyone else that the White House did any such thing.
I have heard from Dakota Big, Matt19, Rogerg, Yankee Joe, and now you, all repeating the same claims, yet strangely unable to produce a factual substantiation of any of them and unable to provide a fact-based rebuttal of any of my contrary arguments. Your reaction looks to me like a textbook illustration of the backfire effect.
The "backfire effect" is a term coined by Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler to describe how some individuals when confronted with evidence that conflicts with their beliefs come to hold their original position even more strongly.
You all act as though you are so sure of being right that you have no need for facts.
I am not going to sift through the internet reporting to highlight my points. I have better things to do. I will be content to throw out things I know from memory and leave it at that. If that's not enough for you, that's cool. Shoot me down. You can go back to worshiping JoPa Obama feeling good about yourself.
Similar threads
