Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Backfire: ABC, CNN, NBC Call for White House to Release Benghazi Emails

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Backfire: ABC, CNN, NBC Call for White House to Release Benghazi Emails

    Backfire: ABC, CNN, NBC Call for White House to Release Benghazi Emails

    Breitbart / Big-Journalism

    John Nolte
    5/15/2013

    Excerpt:

    ***UPDATE: NBC's senior White House correspondent joined the chorus Wednesday. On his MSNBC show, "The Daily Rundown," Chuck Todd looked into the camera and said, "Attention White House: Release all the emails." The headline has been updated to add NBC.

    Assuming they are the ones who leaked to CNN an email written by Ben Rhoades (a Deputy National Security Advisor close to the President), the White House might have been too clever by half Tuesday. An act that was obviously meant to pour water on the Benghazi fire started by an ABC News report, has only ended up being gasoline. Now both CNN and ABC have joined conservative media in calling for the White House to release all the emails surrounding the editing of the CIA talking points.

    Friday, in a bombshell report that blew the long-simmering Libya scandal wide open and right into the arms of the mainstream media, ABC's Jonathan Karl reported that an email written by Rhoades specifically mentioned the State Department's concerns about the CIA talking points. Here is how Karl transcribed the Rhoades email:

    We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don’t want to undermine the FBI investigation. We thus will work through the talking points tomorrow morning at the Deputies Committee meeting.

    Though this point wasn't the main focus of Karl's report, it was important because it showed that the White House was backing State in pushing inconvenient facts out of the talking points. This included the fact that terrorists were behind the attack and that State had been negligent when it came to providing security for our diplomatic mission.

    In the end, as we now know, and apparently due to the prodding of Hillary Clinton's right hand woman at State, Victoria Nuland, the talking points ended up being completely wrong, which resulted in the American people being misled by the Obama Administration, straight through to a speech the President gave at the United Nations almost two weeks after the attack.

    Yesterday, though, CNN's Jake Tapper received what he was told by a source is the actual transcript of Rhoades' email, which reads this way:

    All –

    Sorry to be late to this discussion. We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation.

    There is a ton of wrong information getting out into the public domain from Congress and people who are not particularly informed. Insofar as we have firmed up assessments that don’t compromise intel or the investigation, we need to have the capability to correct the record, as there are significant policy and messaging ramifications that would flow from a hardened mis-impression.

    We can take this up tomorrow morning at deputies.


    What is important about this version is that it does not directly mention the State Department, which gives the White House some cover when it comes to its role in shaping the talking points. And whether they leaked the email to Tapper or not, there is no question the White House was excited about the leak. White House spokesman Jay Carney made sure to mention the news of Tapper's report in yesterday's White House briefing.

    But things aren’t exactly turning out the way the White House likely hoped.

    Though he didn’t see the original Rhoades email and was reporting off what a source told him the email said, Karl stands by his original reporting:

    I asked my original source today to explain the different wording on the Ben Rhodes e-mail, and the fact that the words “State Department” were not included in the e-mail provided to CNN’s Tapper.

    This was my source’s response, via e-mail: “WH reply was after a long chain of email about State Dept concerns. So when WH emailer says, take into account all equities, he is talking about the State equities, since that is what the email chain was about.”


    ..............................................

    View the complete article at:

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journal...e-Libya-Emails
    Last edited by bsteadman; 05-16-2013, 01:48 PM.
    B. Steadman

  • #2
    Benghazi Emails Directly Contradict White House Claims

    The Weekly Standard

    Stephen F. Hayes
    5/16/2013

    Excerpt:

    The White House on Wednesday released 94 pages of emails between top administration and intelligence officials who helped shape the talking points about the attacks in Benghazi, Libya, that the CIA would provide to policymakers in both the legislative and executive branches.
    Pretty sure HPSCI won't like them :-)

    The documents, first reported by THE WEEKLY STANDARD in articles here and here, directly contradict claims by White House press secretary Jay Carney and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that the revisions of those talking points were driven by the intelligence community and show heavy input from top Obama administration officials, particularly those at the State Department.

    The emails provide further detail about the rewriting of the talking points during a 24-hour period from midday September 14 to midday September 15. As THE WEEKLY STANDARD previously reported, a briefing from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence shows that the big changes came in three waves – internally at the CIA, after email feedback from top administration officials, and during or after a meeting of high-ranking intelligence and national security officials the following morning.

    The initial CIA changes softened some of the language about the participants in the Benghazi assault – from “Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda” to “Islamic extremists.” But CIA officials also added bullet points about the possible participation of Ansar al Sharia, an al Qaeda-linked jihadist group, and previous warnings about the deteriorating security situation in Benghazi. Those additions came out after the talking points were sent to “the interagency,” where the CIA’s final draft was further stripped down to little more than boilerplate. The half dozen references to terrorists – both in Benghazi and more generally – all but disappeared. Gone were references to al Qaeda, Ansar al Sharia, jihadists, Islamic extremists, etc. The only remaining mention was a note that “extremists” had participated in the attack.

    As striking as what appears in the email traffic is what does not. There is no mention of the YouTube video that would become a central part of the administration’s explanation of the attacks to the American people until a brief mention in the subject line of emails coming out of an important meeting where further revisions were made.

    Carney, in particular, is likely to face tough questioning about the contents of the emails because he made claims to reporters that were untrue. “The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two – of these two institutions were changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility,’ because the word ‘consulate’ was inaccurate,” he told reporters on November 28, 2012.

    That’s not true. An email sent at 9:15 PM on September 14, from an official in the CIA’s Office of Public Affairs to others at the agency, described the process this way. “The State Department had major reservations with much or most of the document. We revised the document with their concerns in mind.”

    That directly contradicts what Carney said. It’s also difficult to reconcile with claims made by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during testimony she gave January 23 on Capitol Hill.

    .................................................. ..

    View the complete article at:

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...ms_724603.html
    B. Steadman

    Comment


    • #3
      The Benghazi deception

      Canada Free Press

      Doug Hagmann
      5/16/2013

      Excerpt:

      It is interesting that the corporate media, like sharks attracted to chum in the water, is just now appearing to treat Benghazi as a political scandal similar to Watergate that took down former U.S. President Richard M. Nixon in his second term. While many people see the comparison, I not only see the comparison, but also sense a collusion of a different, more nefarious and less conspicuous type as well.

      As the details of Benghazi are beginning to emerge from “whistleblowers” and the murderous events are being rightfully elevated to the proper realm of criminal conspiracy, other scandals have suddenly seemed to erupt, almost as if cued by a complicit choreographer. Most egregious misdeeds of the Internal Revenue Service, for example, that allegedly targeted Conservative groups, from 501(c)3 organizations to any group with Tea party or Constitution in their names, were suddenly “revealed.”

      Other scandals of lesser significance, but nonetheless poking at the embers of public ire and intolerance are popping up as well. Watching the people who are reading the multiple news headlines on various news aggregator sites are like watching spectators at Wimbledon, as their heads move from side to side as they follow the ball in play. The white noise of new problems are constantly erupting, resulting in a feeding frenzy in the waters surrounding the Executive branch.

      While fascinating to watch, has anyone stopped to consider that the process of chumming the waters with a flurry of cascading news events, combined with a docu-dump of 100 pages of Benghazi e-mails is actually a methodically orchestrated diversion? What is it we are not supposed to be seeing amid the white noise of new controversies of varying values? Are we being told that we’re aboard the Queen Mary and being directed to look over the port side at the antics of the sharks attracted by the chumming of the waters while we’re actually aboard the RMS Lusitania sailing through the Irish Channel on the afternoon of May 7, 1915? Meanwhile, a torpedo fired from a German U-boat is traveling directly for our starboard side, and is about to take the entire ship down.

      Like a levy that has been suspiciously breached, the informational flood created by these news events is without recent precedent. The timing of this flood is of particularly critical importance. The headlines are diverting our attention away from a critical window of investigative value relating to Benghazi. Could it be that we’re seeing a form of force majeure being implemented to overwhelm and distract us from something far more important to truth seekers and consequently, much more lethal to Obama’s second term? Perhaps the Cloward-Piven strategy adapted and modified for the modern news cycles of today?

      The Watergate-Benghazi time continuum


      It has become common practice to use the Watergate “scandal” as the basis for any controversy involving the President or the White House, having set some arbitrary high-water mark for behavioral tolerance involving a sitting president. Watergate is commonly used to describe an intricate web of criminal deception that took place during former President Richard Nixon’s second term in the White House, and is routinely identified as the cause that brought down Nixon’s presidency.

      A critical component of the Watergate investigation involved audio surreptitiously recorded by a little-known audio taping system installed in the Oval Office in early 1971 that captured nearly all utterances by anyone meeting with the president. During the investigation of the Watergate scandal, the recordings pertaining to relevant discussions were the subject of investigative demands and subpoenas by the investigating committee. Submission of the tapes became a bloody battleground between Nixon and the House Select Committee. After months of fighting, the tapes were finally surrendered and an unexplained 18 1/2 minute gap, or totality of gaps, was discovered. Analysis of that effacement determined that it was the result of at least five separate manual erasures, verifying that the missing time memorialized by these tapes was no accident.

      Whether it’s Watergate or Benghazi, there’s one piece of evidence in both of these criminal cover-ups from which the actors involved try to deflect your attention by any means possible. It’s the proverbial garden path plotted by the architects of deception themselves. Following this garden path through the winding turns to its origins will expose that one nugget of information needed to unravel the lies and cover-ups elusive to so many. It is a highly protected secret nestled among other less damning facts, diversions and deceptions.

      Benghazi is no exception, but instead provides a textbook example of diversion from the golden nugget hidden inside a crusted shell made to look like all others. So, just what is that particular nugget of criminal naughtiness?

      Erasure of evidence: Present day

      The nugget that is being hidden here is not content of the memos relating to matters of diplomatic security, but something far more nefarious and elusive by its mere simplicity. Like the questions that surrounded the mysterious 18 1/2 minute gap in the Watergate tapes forty-years ago, there is a period of missing time that few seem anxious to address. By order of magnitude, however, this missing time is far greater than anything we saw with Watergate. Instead of 18 1/2 minutes of presidential time, it’s nearly 18 1/2 hours of time involving the actions, utterances, commands or lack thereof of Barack Hussein Obama as Americans were being killed a half-world away.

      Expose that nugget and I suspect the findings will be far more damaging, far more troubling, and exceedingly more alarming than anyone has begun to imagine. It is this mystical missing period of time where many clues exist. Exactly where was Barack Hussein Obama following his 5:00 meeting in the Oval Office until the next day? Where wasn’t he? It’s almost as if the Wizard of Oz himself waved his magical wand to divert attention away from those lost hours.

      Hillary Rodham Clinton’s crystal ball


      It’s almost as if Hillary Rodham Clinton’s 2008 campaign commercial relating to the proverbial 3:00 a.m. telephone call was precognitive and eerily accurate. If not answering the calls to save American lives during the darkest hours of the night, could he have perhaps found a glimmer of light from a bad moon rising from which to order the positioning assets and personnel in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief? If not, then did not Hillary Clinton accurately predict the ringing but unanswered phone with crystal-ball like accuracy?

      Based on Hillary Rodham Clinton’s unspoken ambitions for a White House bid in 2016, why aren’t partisan mouthpiece sycophants like Media Matters and Think Progress illuminating her prophetic warnings instead of shamelessly working overtime to politicize legitimate questions surrounding the murders in Benghazi? Instead of prepositioning political capital on behalf of Clinton, they are still in full defensive mode to divert all attention away from Obama’s activities taking place under the cover of a shadowy darkness.

      Few have demanded, in the form and fashion of Watergate, to know where Obama was during this most critical time in American history, who he was with, and what he was doing - far beyond the snippets we have been provided. Why does the request for specificity for Obama’s activities during this very precise segment of time be shaping up to be some type of “third rail” to the Benghazi cover-up?

      We know that the Secret Service, in tandem with the National Security Council perform joint drills for such emergencies such as this. The Secret Service, among others, possess very specific logs from that night that could provide answers. Why has no one with the authority to do so requested a full accounting of Obama’s location and activities?

      Interestingly, Hillary Rodham Clinton’s apparent powers of clairvoyance nearly a half-decade before Benghazi is being ignored rather than celebrated, and questions, much like an incessantly ringing telephone, are being diverted instead of answered.

      .........................................

      View the complete article at:

      http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/55241
      B. Steadman

      Comment


      • #4
        Free Republic is running a thread titled, 'Exclusive: Holder Says 'No' to Special Counsel to Investigate Benghazi', which was started 5/15/2013 by 'Justaham'

        The thread references a 5/15/2013 Breitbart article written by AWR Hawkins - http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...igate-Benghazi

        View the complete Free Republic thread at:

        http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3020031/posts

        Excerpt:

        Breitbart News has obtained an exclusive video of Attorney General Eric Holder flatly rejecting the idea of appointing a special counsel to investigate Benghazi.

        Filmed on May 15 and provided to Breitbart News by Special Operations Speaks, the video shows Holder emerge from his car and walk towards the Rayburn House Office Building for hearings on the IRS scandal. Holder is clearly asked, "Mr. Holder, will you appoint a Special Counsel to investigate Benghazi?"

        In equally clear tones, Holder answers, "No," and disappears into the building.





        Last edited by bsteadman; 05-16-2013, 02:50 PM.
        B. Steadman

        Comment


        • #5
          Petraeus email objected to Benghazi talking points

          Fox News - DC

          By Nedra Pickler, Associated Press
          5/15/2013

          Excerpt:

          WASHINGTON (AP) - Then CIA-Director David Petraeus objected to the final talking points the Obama administration used after the deadly assault on a U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, because he wanted to see more details revealed to the public, according to emails released Wednesday by the White House.

          Under pressure in the investigation that continues eight months after the attacks, the White House on Wednesday released 99 pages of emails and a single page of hand-written notes made by Petraeus' deputy, Mike Morell, after a meeting at the White House on Saturday, Sept. 15. On that page, Morell scratched out from the CIA's early drafts of talking points mentions of al-Qaida, the experience of fighters in Libya, Islamic extremists and a warning to the Cairo embassy on the eve of the attacks of calls for a demonstration and break-in by jihadists.

          Petraeus apparently was displeased by the removal of so much of the material his analysts initially had proposed for release. The talking points were sent to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice to prepare her for an appearance on news shows on Sunday, Sept. 16, and also to members of the House Intelligence Committee.

          .........................................

          View the complete article at:

          http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/2225825...#axzz2TP7BakWk
          B. Steadman

          Comment


          • #6
            ‘Is Anybody Home’? CBS’ Bob Schieffer Goes After Admin For Pleading Ignorance About Benghazi, IRS, AP

            Mediaite

            Meenal Vamburkar
            5/16/2013

            Excerpt:

            “Is anybody home?” Bob Schieffer asked on Thursday’s CBS This Morning. Anybody in the Obama administration, that is. Taking on the accusations about President Obama‘s Nixonian ways, Schieffer rejected the comparison — but remained critical. It’s “disturbing,” he argued, that the administration says they don’t know anything about the trio of scandals they’re now trying to juggle.

            Responding to Charlie Rose‘s remark that Obama “seems like a bystander in his own government,” Schieffer mentioned the Nixon references.

            “This is not the Nixon administration,” Schieffer stated. “This is more of a case, ‘Is anybody home?’”

            In essence, he added, the administration has said they don’t know anything about anything — when asked about Benghazi, the IRS, and the AP/DOJ issues. “I mean, somebody has got to grab hold of this thing,” he contended. “It’s very, very disturbing what we’re seeing here.”

            .......................................

            View the complete article, including video, at:

            http://www.mediaite.com/tv/is-anybod...nghazi-irs-ap/
            B. Steadman

            Comment


            • #7
              Video: RNC's Unreleased Benghazi Ad - Fall 2012

              B. Steadman

              Comment

              Working...
              X