Page 9 of 46 First ... 567891011121329 ... Last
  1. #89
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    Was Obama briefed that Benghazi was a terror attack before Rice went on TV?
    posted at 11:31 am on November 17, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

    So says John Solomon at the Washington Guardian, citing sources within the intelligence community. Within 72 hours, the Presidential Daily Briefing made it clear, according to Solomon, that the attack did not arise from a spontaneous mob protesting a YouTube video, but instead resulted from a planned, coordinated attack by radical Islamist “extremists” with links to al-Qaeda: http://www.washingtonguardian.com/wh...-knew-benghazi

    U.S. intelligence told President Barack Obama and senior administration officials within 72 hours of the Benghazi tragedy that the attack was likely carried out by local militia and other armed extremists sympathetic to al-Qaida in the region, officials directly familiar with the information told the Washington Guardian on Friday.

    Based on electronic intercepts and human intelligence on the ground, the early briefings after the deadly Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya identified possible organizers and participants. Most were believed to be from a local Libyan militia group called Ansar al-Sharia that is sympathetic to al-Qaida, the official said, while a handful of others was linked to a direct al-Qaida affiliate in North Africa known as AQIM.

    Those briefings also raised the possibility that the attackers may have been inspired both by spontaneous protests across the globe on the 11th anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks and by a desire to seek vengeance for the U.S. killing last summer of a Libyan-born leader of al-Qaida named Abu Yaya al-Libi, the officials said, speaking only on condition of anonymity because they were discussing intelligence matters.

    The details from the CIA and Pentagon assessments of the killing of Ambassador Chris Stephens were far more specific, more detailed and more current than the unclassified talking points that UN Ambassador Susan Rice and other officials used five days after the attack to suggest to Americans that an unruly mob angry over an anti-Islamic video was to blame, officials said.
    Jennifer Rubin calls this game over for the administration’s defense of Susan Rice, and of the President himself: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...5445_blog.html

    Solomon cautions that there were bits of evidence pointing to a spontaneous attack but, as Eli Lake of the Daily Beast and others have reported, he writes: “Among the early evidence cited in the briefings to the president and other senior officials were intercepts showing some of the participants were known members or supporters of Ansar al-Sharia — the al-Qaida-sympathizing militia in Libya — and the AQIM, which is a direct affiliate of al-Qaida in northern Africa, the officials said.”

    How could the president and his senior staff then have allowed (or rather, sent) Rice to go out to tell an entirely different tale to the American people on Sept. 16 on five TV shows?

    This report indicates that the president certainly knew that Benghazi wasn’t a rogue movie review gone bad. He had information that plainly spelled out what was later confirmed by additional intelligence. If this information was too confidential to share with the public, at the very least the president and others should not have mislead voters.

    This is a full-blown scandal, and in light of this information, the press corps’s slothful indifference to uncovering the truth at Wednesday’s news conference with Obama is all the more shocking. It is time for the president to come clean. The scandal has now enveloped the Oval Office and will define his second term, if not resolved satisfactorily.

    To some extent, this wouldn’t be a surprise, if accurate. A month ago, we learned that the CIA station chief in Libya had cabled Washington that the sacking of the consulate was a terrorist attack, not a protest gone rogue. Two days after the attack itself, the Independent in the UK reported that the US had warnings up to 48 hours before the attack that the consulate had been targeted for 9/11. We learned in October that the State Department knew within two hours after the attack that Ansar al-Sharia had claimed credit for it. All of this would fit very neatly into a PDB 72 hours later that concluded the attack had been planned and coordinated by terrorists rather than a mob action, or even a spontaneous terrorist action initiated to exploit a supposed demonstration.

    We certainly have heard enough to conclude that Rice’s statement on several shows that there was “no evidence” of a terrorist attack was flat-out false, regardless of whether the evidence was conclusive by the time she made those appearances. Solomon’s sources advance that part of the story by claiming that the PDB made a conclusive case that Benghazi at least two days before Obama sent Rice out to disseminate a false narrative. If those sources are accurate — and it’s worth pointing out that anonymous sources have told many conflicting tales in this scandal thus far — that puts Obama in a very bad position, especially since he personally extended that narrative in the US and at the UN in a speech that blamed “those who slander the Prophet of Islam” for the violence.

    What’s interesting about Solomon’s leak, other than the data itself, is the timing. David Petraeus testified yesterday that he had almost immediately concluded that a terrorist attack had taken place, and that the official talking points given to Rice had been edited somewhere along the way from the CIA. This came at the same time as a leak from the CIA that Petraeus would be the subject of an investigation into his extramarital affair with Paula Broadwell, and a leak the day before of the talking points prepared for Susan Rice, which at first blush exonerated her from charges of lying about the attack. There is a war going on between State and the intel community, and perhaps within the intel community itself, with sources having axes to grind lobbing leaks like mortar shells into this story.

    The result? It’s difficult to determine the truth without a boatload of subpoenas, but it’s clear that we haven’t heard the whole story about what happened before, during, and after the attack.

    http://hotair.com/archives/2012/11/1...ce-went-on-tv/
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  2. # ADS
    Circuit advertisement Obama KNEW ... and lied to the American people
    Join Date
    Always
    Location
    Advertising world
    Posts
    Many
     

  3. #90
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    Congress to investigate Benghazi 'talking points'
    By ANNE FLAHERTY | Associated Press – 7 hrs ago


    WASHINGTON (AP) — Lawmakers said Sunday they want to know who had a hand in creating the Obama administration's now-discredited "talking points" about the Sept. 11 attack on a U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, and why a final draft omitted the CIA's early conclusion that terrorists were involved.

    The answers could explain why President Barack Obama and top aides, including U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, described the attack for days afterward as a protest against an anti-Islam video that spontaneously turned violent and why they played down any potential link to al-Qaida, despite evidence to the contrary.

    Administration officials have defended the portrayal of the attack as relying on the best information available at the time that didn't compromise classified intelligence. Democrats say CIA and other intelligence officials signed off on the final talking points.

    Republicans have alleged a Watergate-like cover up, accusing White House aides of hiding the terrorism link in the run-up to the Nov. 6 presidential election so voters wouldn't question Obama's claim that al-Qaida's power had diminished. "I know the narrative was wrong and the intelligence was right. ... We're going to get to the bottom of how that happened," said Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

    Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who heads the Senate Intelligence Committee, said she doesn't believe the White House altered the document for political reasons. But she said she has lingering concerns about how the talking points were created when it was clear early on that the military-style assault wasn't a simple protest gone awry.

    She said Congress has asked the administration to provide a detailed explanation. "We gave the direction yesterday that this whole process is going to be checked out," said Feinstein, D-Calif. "We're going to find out who made changes in the original statement. Until, we do I really think it's unwarranted to make accusations."

    The inquiry comes on the heels of closed testimony to the committees last week by former CIA Director David Petraeus. According to lawmakers who attended the meetings, Petraeus said the reference to al-Qaida was removed from the final version of talking points, although he wasn't sure who or which federal agency deleted it.

    A senior U.S. official familiar with the document, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the official was not authorized to discuss the process publicly, said the al-Qaida reference was deleted because the information came from classified sources and the links were tenuous. The administration also did not want to prejudice a criminal investigation in its early stages, that official said.

    Feinstein confirmed that intelligence officials told her in closed briefings that they were reluctant to name any particular terrorist group without being certain. But, she added, it was clear very soon after the attack that the violence didn't stem from a political demonstration.

    Ben Rhodes, Obama's deputy national security adviser, told reporters traveling with the president to Asia that any substantive edits to the talking points would have come from intelligence agencies themselves. The only change the White House made, he said, was to correct a reference to the facility in Benghazi as a "diplomatic facility," instead of a "consulate." "Other than that we were guided by the points that were provided by the intelligence community. So I can't speak to any other edits that may have been made," he said.

    But lawmakers said that Capitol Hill briefings last week represented the FBI, State Department and CIA, and that officials did not address what role political appointees such as Rice might have played in the generation of the talking points. Republicans said they want Rice to testify about what she knew and when she knew it. "What I do know is that every member in the intelligence community says that references to al-Qaida were removed by somebody, they don't know who," said Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga.

    Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said Petraeus had signed off on the final talking points and that going after Rice was a useless witch hunt.

    But Rep. Peter King said senior intelligence officials were strong-armed into doing so. "Well, they had no choice," said King, R-N.Y., chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee. "They had no choice at that stage."

    King did not elaborate on how he would know whether Petraeus was compelled to sign off on the talking points, and the lawmaker did not give any more details to bolster his allegation.

    Sen. Olympia Snowe, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said she expects the committee will hold at least three more hearings on the matter and publish a report on its findings. "It took 17 days for the director of national intelligence even to issue a statement to say that it was a deliberate and organized terrorist attack," said Snowe, R-Maine. "That's unacceptable in today's environment."

    Feinstein and Rogers spoke on NBC's "Meet the Press." Levin and King were on ABC's "This Week." Chambliss appeared on "Fox News Sunday" and Snowe was on CBS' "Face the Nation."

    http://news.yahoo.com/congress-inves...-politics.html

    comments

    The NSA has been reduced to talking points? People are dying and they want to know what they will tell the press?

    ..

    Congress should focus on the larger question as to why additional security was repeatedly denied by the state department long before the attack. Who was responsible for making those decisions and why have they not been exposed and fired?

    ..

    I'll keep asking what I believe is the most important question, a question which a number of people know the answer: Who issued the stand down order? Once we know that, all else will quickly fall into place.

    ..

    Can you imagine how this would have been treated had this happened on GWB' s term...

    ..

    I have a question for them. Why was Hamm relieved of his duty at the moment the attack started? He was forty minutes away.

    ..

    I suspect we all know exactly what happend. Some of us just don't want to admit it.
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  4. #91

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    2,400
    Thanks
    849
    Thanked 444 Times in 312 Posts
    the only transparency that I see are the obvious lies. as one person pointed out what happened to the questions of lack of security on 9/11 in a known hostile environment? Americans were left to the mercy of groups that are anti-american and subsequently murdered. I have a feeling that these reports will be buried so far out of sight, the truth will never be known to americans.

  5. #92
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    November 19, 2012
    Whodunnit? Benghazi Talking Points Mysteriously Changed

    The Administration talking points on Benghazi were edited to downplay the terror references, but by whom? In a nice display of synchronized finger-pointing, everyone involved says it was someone else. http://freebeacon.com/white-house-ch...alking-points/

    Vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee Saxby Chambliss (R., Ga.) also said on Fox News Sunday that Petraeus said the initial talking points were altered and that senior intelligence and security officials did not know who was behind the changes.

    “At the hearing we had on Thursday and Friday, we had every leader of the intelligence community there, including folks from the State Department, the FBI, everybody there was asked, do you know who made these changes? And nobody knew,” Chambliss said.

    “The only entity that reviewed the talking points that was not there was the White House. I don’t know whether what they said yesterday is exactly right or not. But, what I do know is that every member of the intelligence community says that references to al Qaeda were removed by somebody and they don’t know who. And references to attacks versus demonstrations were removed by somebody.”

    Chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) disagreed with Rogers and said allegations the White House changed the talking points were false. “So there was only one thing that was changed and I’ve checked into this, I believe it to be absolute fact and that was the word ‘consulate’ was changed to ‘mission,’” she said on the same program.

    Although they risk offending their Silicon Valley supporters, Team Obama might want to consider blaming AutoCorrect. http://www.wtfautocorrects.com/
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  6. #93
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    Office of the Director of National Intelligence edited al Qaeda references from CIA talking points
    By Doug Powers • November 20, 2012 02:24 PM

    The question of who edited the CIA guidance concerning the Benghazi attack continues evolving toward its inevitable conclusion of “Colonel Mustard in the study with the candlestick.”

    From CBS News: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_1...bi-signed-off/

    CBS News has learned that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) cut specific references to “al Qaeda” and “terrorism” from the unclassified talking points given to Ambassador Susan Rice on the Benghazi consulate attack – with the agreement of the CIA and FBI. The White House or State Department did not make those changes.

    There has been considerable discussion about who made the changes to the talking points that Rice stuck to in her television appearances on Sept. 16 (video), five days after the attack that killed American Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens, and three other U.S. nationals.

    Republicans have accused her of making misleading statements by referring to the assault as a “spontaneous” demonstration by extremists. Some have suggested she used the terminology she did for political reasons.

    However, an intelligence source tells CBS News correspondent Margaret Brennan the links to al Qaeda were deemed too “tenuous” to make public, because there was not strong confidence in the person providing the intelligence. CIA Director David Petraeus, however, told Congress he agreed to release the information — the reference to al Qaeda — in an early draft of the talking points, which were also distributed to select lawmakers.
    A possible al-Qaeda connection was considered too tenuous to include in the talking points (and on the 9/11 anniversary no less), but spontaneous protest over a YouTube video — while there was apparently never any hard evidence to justify such an assumption http://ace.mu.nu/archives/335082.php — wasn’t too tenuous? http://michellemalkin.com/2012/09/20...sses-benghazi/

    Last week, Rep. Peter King said James Clapper testified that he didn’t know who edited terrorism references out of the CIA talking points:
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...t-source-says/

    Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., told Fox News that intelligence officials who testified in a closed-door hearing a day earlier, including Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Acting CIA Director Mike Morell, said they did not know who changed the talking points. He said they went out to multiple departments, including the State Department, National Security Council, Justice Department and White House.
    The White House previously said they didn’t make the edits either. http://michellemalkin.com/2012/11/18...da-references/

    Still, none of this explains why Susan Rice was sent out four days after the attack to offer an explanation that it appears nobody in the administration or intelligence community believed to be true. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xk6s5...layer_embedded

    Meanwhile, after doing such a great job on Benghazi, Hillary’s on her way to the Middle East to lead ceasefire talks. http://twitchy.com/2012/11/20/after-...asefire-talks/


    http://michellemalkin.com/2012/11/20/cbs-dni-al-qaeda/ **Written by Doug Powers


    comments

    A possible al-Qaeda connection was considered too tenuous to include in the talking points (and on the 9/11 anniversary no less), but spontaneous protest over a YouTube video wasn’t?


    ...

    So why, then, did the President, as he himself claimed in the 3rd debate, and was backed up by Candy Crowley, say that it was an act of terror, if that information had been scrubbed from the reports before it reached the White House?

    One is true, the other is not. Which one is the lie, Mr. President? You can’t have it both ways.


    ..

    For those of us who are soooo very tired of talking points, listening to Rice spew them was like nails on a chalk board. The whole point of having “talking points” is to lie and deceive. Politicians can’t live without their lies, which is used to cover up incompetence. No wonder the economy stinks. No wonder the debt is sky high. No wonder the world is a mess. Thank you bho et all!

    ..

    Obama said the same thing at the UN. That was a more important venue than Rice on a talk show.

    He still didn’t have the information correct when he did that? Does he even know whats going on now? Are our people in danger due to a CIC that is clueless?

    ..

    Remember in addition to all the theatre about how “the video made them do that” was the publicity surrounding the arrest of the video’s producer.

    ..


    CBS News has learned that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) cut specific references to “al Qaeda” and “terrorism” from the unclassified talking points given to Ambassador Susan Rice on the Benghazi consulate attack – with the agreement of the CIA and FBI. The White House or State Department did not make those changes.
    Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., told Fox News that intelligence officials who testified in a closed-door hearing a day earlier, including Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Acting CIA Director Mike Morell, said they did not know who changed the talking points.
    So word is Clapper did it but Clapper previously testified he did not do it?

    2 months later, still clear as mud.

    Where did the reference to a video come from? Petraeus said it was terrorism. Who brought in the video information? Did Clapper’s office ADD that? If so, who did it and why?

    Simple questions, complex answers. Someone’s lying.

    ..

    The left still villifies Condi Rice for saying what Clinton and Gore said…there are WMD’s in Iraq. And the difference is?? How dare you talk about a black female Democrat!

    ..

    Why in the world the administration didn’t come out from the beginning and just say that the whole thing was classified. Period.

    Their damage control sucks. If your ship is about to roll over, you can counter-flood to right it again, or at least get some of the angle (list) off.

    But you’re not supposed to keep flooding until you sink.
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  7. #94

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    2,400
    Thanks
    849
    Thanked 444 Times in 312 Posts
    it appears that susan rice never has to offer her own opinion and is just a puppet for the government. dementia is known to happen when you do not use your brain cells.......

  8. #95
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    Somebody please give Joe Klein the revised Benghazi talking points
    By Doug Powers • November 26, 2012 03:13 PM

    Judging from his appearance on MSNBC this morning, Time magazine’s Joe Klein hasn’t received the revised memo about the Benghazi attack. Klein’s still using the “Susan Rice/Jay Carney/September 16th” playbook http://michellemalkin.com/2012/09/16...y-middle-east/ which has since been mostly revised to purge initial claims of “the video made them do it” and “it wasn’t a premeditated terrorist attack.” http://twitchy.com/2012/09/24/finall...-a-mob-action/

    From Newsbusters: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-fi...sgiving-turkey

    Here were some of Klein’s astounding assertions: http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/po...rrorist_attack There are no unanswered questions about Benghazi. Ambassador Stevens had all the security he wanted. Rice’s talking points were “absolutely accurate” — it was a spontaneous demonstration by extremists. Al qaeda was not involved in the attack. Not clear that reports from Stevens asking for more security exist.
    Obviously the DNI has successfully edited Klein’s brain to exclude any references to the facts in this matter: http://michellemalkin.com/2012/11/20/cbs-dni-al-qaeda/

    http://www.mrctv.org/videos/klein-go...sgiving-turkey


    93/1,194
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  9. #96
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    Susan Rice on Benghazi: There was no intention to mislead anybody
    By Doug Powers • November 27, 2012 04:32 PM


    Today’s update to the ongoing attempt to unravel the Benghazi story: http://www.politico.com/politico44/2...zi-150400.html

    Under fire from congressional critics, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice stressed in a Tuesday statement that she did not intend to mislead the public about the September 11th attacks on the Benghazi consulate.

    “Neither I nor anyone else in the administration intended to mislead the American people at any stage in this process, and the administration updated Congress and the American people as our assessments evolved,” Rice said.

    Rice has emerged as a high-profile administration target for congressional critics who claim that the Obama administration tried to cover up a terrorist link to the attacks.

    Rice and acting CIA director Michael Morell met Tuesday with Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) to discuss her public statements in the aftermath of the assault that killed four U.S. State Department personnel in September.

    Rice did a round of Sunday shows the weekend after the attack, and claimed that it had been sparked by an anti-Muslim video. The intelligence community later revised their assessment of the attack.

    “In the course of the meeting, we explained that the talking points provided by the intelligence community, and the initial assessment upon which they were based, were incorrect in a key respect: there was no protest or demonstration in Benghazi,” Rice said.

    “While, we certainly wish that we had had perfect information just days after the terrorist attack, as is often the case, the intelligence assessment has evolved,” she said.

    That’s a long way of trying to explain what Debbie Wasserman Schultz said last month: Just because the administration put out stories about Benghazi that proved to be wrong doesn’t mean they were false at the time they were told. Got that? http://michellemalkin.com/2012/10/11...enghazi-false/

    Today, Rice — after possibly fielding an email or phone call from Joe Klein trying to convince her that the Benghazi attack was all about the video http://michellemalkin.com/2012/11/26...lein-benghazi/ — met with Sens. McCain, Graham and Ayotte. It didn’t go well. McCain said he was still “significantly troubled” by Rice’s statements, and Graham and Ayotte agreed: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/mccain-an...ting-with-her/

    Lindsey Graham, another Republican Senator who has been openly critical of Rice and the Obama administration, said to reporters outside Capitol Hill, ”Bottom line: I’m more disturbed now than I was before.” Graham went on to note that he believes it’s better to remain silent than to spread false information:

    Before you give bad information, it’s better to give no information at all [...] If you don’t know what happened, just say you don’t know what happened. Here’s what I can tell you: the American people got bad information on 16 September. They got bad information from President Obama days after and the question is, should they have been giving the information at all?
    Kelly Ayotte, a Republican Senator from New Hampshire, agreed with McCain and Graham, saying, “It was certainly clear from the beginning that we knew that those with ties to al-Qaeda were involved in the attack on the embassy and clearly the impression that was given, or the information given to the American people, was wrong.”

    http://videos.mediaite.com/embed/pla...azi-mislead%2F



    Paul Mirengoff at Powerline adds: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive...-her-cause.php

    According to Dana Bush of CNN, https://twitter.com/natlsecuritycnn/...72217050906624 sources say that Rice told the Senators that, before going on the Sunday talk shows, she saw classfied documents indicating that al Qaeda may have been involved in the Benghazi attack. The same sources say that Rice told the Senators she regrets her public comments.

    It has been clear to us that Rice almost certainly did, in fact, see the classified documents that mentioned al Qaeda. Now that she’s admitted this, the question becomes whether her statements on the five Sunday talk shows were consistent with the information contained in the documents. After all, though Rice can argue that it would have been improper to disclose classified information, she cannot argue that it was improper to make statements that didn’t entirely square with that information.

    My guess is that Rice is in an intellectually untenable position.





    **Written by Doug Powers http://michellemalkin.com/2012/11/27...ghazi-mislead/
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  10. #97
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    Video: Lindsey Graham More Disturbed After Meeting With Ambassador Rice Than Before
    November, 27, 2012 — nicedeb

    UN Ambassador Susan Rice met with three Republican Senators on the Hill, today, in what has been described as “her final pitch for their support” if she is nominated to succeed Hillary Rodham Clinton as the next U.S. secretary of state, which is looking highly likely at this point.. http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/11...te-nomination/

    Liberals were hoping that Republicans would abandon their opposition to Susan Rice after meeting with her. But that does not appear to be the case. http://theweek.com/article/index/236...-to-susan-rice

    Instead of smoothing things over, she seems to have fanned the flames.

    In an astounding press conference, that just finished moments ago, Senators Graham, Ayotte and McCain expressed more skepticism and displeasure with Rice and the whole Benghazi saga than they had before.

    Nice Deb@NiceDeb

    Wow: Lindsey Graham after meeting with Rice this morning: "I'm more disturbed now than I was before...." #benghazigate

    27 Nov 12
    Nice Deb@NiceDeb

    Sen. Kelly Ayotte also says she's more disturbed after meeting with Rice than she was before. #BenghaziGate

    27 Nov 12

    Nice Deb@NiceDeb

    Republican Senators saying that there are more questions than answers as a result of meeting with Susan Rice. #Benghazigate

    27 Nov 12
    Nice Deb@NiceDeb

    Graham just after meeting with Susan Rice: "We not even close to getting answers to basic questions on Benghazi."

    27 Nov 12
    I was genuinely surprised by their response. I had fully expected the Regime to have supplied Rice with a plausible story to placate these easily placated Senators.

    Folks….there’s no plausible story and Republican lawmakers are not letting this go.

    I’ll have a video up as soon as it appears on YouTube.

    ...

    UPDATE:

    More from the press conference via Fox News Insider: http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/11/27...th-ambassador/

    McCain said, “It is clear that the information that she gave the American people was incorrect when she said that it was a spontaneous demonstration triggered by a hateful video. It was not, and there was compelling evidence at the time that that was certainly not the case.”

    Graham concurred, saying, “Bottom line, I am more disturbed now than I was before that the 16 September explanation about how four Americans died in Benghazi, Libya by Ambassador Rice, I think does not do justice to the reality at the time, and in hindsight clearly was completely wrong.”
    Here’s Lindsey Graham’s appearance on Greta Van Susteren, last night, which I was just getting ready to put up when that news broke on Fox. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=k2a-cM0plV8

    He told Greta that the more he knows about Benghazi, the more upset he is that the Consulate was even open on 9/11. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=z8N0BIs7fpI

    http://nicedeb.wordpress.com/2012/11...y-were-before/
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  11. #98

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    2,400
    Thanks
    849
    Thanked 444 Times in 312 Posts
    one lie leads to another lie which leads to another lie etc until the hole is so deep, getting out unscathed would be impossible. rice, imho, will never be secretary of state and will continue to carry the bus's tire treads while hanging out with the political 'in' group.

  12. #99
    pepperpot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    exactly where I should be...
    Posts
    8,566
    Thanks
    4,402
    Thanked 3,793 Times in 2,027 Posts
    I have lost my faith. This will be brushed under the rug and forgotten within a month's time. Move along.....
    Mrs Pepperpot is a lady who always copes with the tricky situations that she finds herself in....

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Log in

Log in