ABC News: Emails Show White House LIED About Benghazi Story "Revisions"

Video link doesn't work, in any event...


Please explain how it "fixes" Hillary Clinton's SWORN TESTIMONY being completely CONTRADICTED by a State Detp. cable with HER SIGNITURE ON IT, of how is "undoes" the White House's pUBLIC STATEMENTS about the Benghazi storyline, vs THEIR OWN EMAILS, detailing how they CREATED A TOTAL LIE, which they ran with for TWO WEEKS, for their cover story?

NIXON RESIGNED for LESS...a LOT LESS..

 

The 4 people who died, died because of a terrorist attack. So if someone blamed Bush for 9/11, you would agree with them? Not likely but your hate of Obama doesn't allow you to see the similarities. There was no coverup but an attempt to know the facts before coming out with statements that would prove false later. I wish Bush had waited for real facts on Iraq. Oh, and the American people were not lied to by Obama but they were by Nixon and Clinton.

 

Hell, I want a lynching as much as anyone. After all, it's Friday!!! But, I'll be content if I can just for once weed through all the deception and politically motivated bs and get some understanding of wtf is factual vs. crap.

 

it works for me, try again

[video=youtube;uOkETADasJg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOkETADasJg[/video]

 

And you would be wrong. Ask Hicks.

 

ONce again, more DESPEREATE ATTEMPTS to IGNORE THE LIESPEAK CAMPAIGN, as though it has NOT BEEN EXPOSED.

Amazing...and nauseating.

- - - Updated - - -

Hicks' testimony is NOT favorable to the Obama ADm.; he said he knew they were LYING as soon as Rice spoke and testifies that he was NOT EVEN CONSULTED, despite being the preeminent expert THERE.

 

"Error" is a nice euphemism for Lying

 

Got it this time..and the POINT STILL STANDS:

Please explain how it "fixes" Hillary Clinton's SWORN TESTIMONY LYING about even receiving requests for more security, not to even mention DENYING THEM, being completely CONTRADICTED by a State Detp. cable with HER SIGNATURE ON IT, of how is "undoes" the White House's PUBLIC STATEMENTS about the Benghazi storyline, vs THEIR OWN EMAILS, detailing how they CREATED A TOTAL LIE, which they ran with for TWO WEEKS, for their cover story?

NIXON RESIGNED for LESS...a LOT LESS..

 

Hahaha they racissss!!!!

 

Ummmm Obama made statements that have proved to be false later.

And now we know they were lies

 

You must have a short memory. The facts that it was a terrorist attack was known before the re-election. Yes, an investigation was carried out that lasted longer than November. Too bad, Bush didn't wait until the facts were known before he went to war with Iraq.

The investigation came up with recommendations that the State Department implements and State Department officials were fired or reassigned for their actions. Maybe the recommendations would have lessen the chances that the incident turn out the way it did but nobody can be sure. Nobody has tried to explain why Stevens would go to Benghazi on the anniversary of 9/11. Ambassadors have been know to take chances but this one seems to be extreme. Not blaming Stevens. I just want to know what was so important for him to take that chance.

 

Which is not the issue. Its that the Obama Administration knew the truth immediately, but then lied about it. Their claim that they only found out later that it was actually a planned terrorist attack is a lie.

Well, the choice of date may be suspect, but he had a meeting with a Turkish diplomat, as we are gun-running from Benghazi to Turkey to Syria. And according to Hick's testimony, Hillary herself wanted him to establish a permanent consulate in Benghazi.

 

Yes, Hicks believes that he was demoted for unfair reasons but the testimony talks about his management skills and his request for transfer. Do you know anything about his management skills or why he wanted to be transferred.? Did you find evidence that Ventrell lied?

 

It must be very quiet and lonely when your head is buried that far in the sand.

 

All I have are the facts , flowing from my keyboard, NONE OF WHICH you, or your irrelevant video, can even remotely dispute.

IOW, same ol' same ol'.

I post the EMBARASSING FACTS, you get reduced to drivebys....per usual.

 

Absolutely that question should be answered. I can not understand why many of the democrats and their lemming followers don't want to fix this nightmare.

 

All that ranting, here educate yourself and then apologize for thinking all that nasty stufff

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...8c2f5b4-adf8-11e2-a986-eec837b1888b_blog.html

 

Ummmmmmmmm, could you give sources to those lies? Not opinions but real proof that he lied.

 

Or tell the Republicans to stop cutting State Department security money.

 

Because a Washington Post OP-ED from a month ago "changes" the emails revealed by ABC news this morning...how, exactly?

How does your OP-Ed change this?:


ABC News has obtained 12 different versions of the talking points that show they were extensively edited as they evolved from the drafts first written entirely by the CIA to the final version distributed to Congress and to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice before she appeared on five talk shows the Sunday after that attack.


White House emails reviewed by ABC News suggest the edits were made with extensive input from the State Department. The edits included requests from the State Department that references to the Al Qaeda-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia be deleted as well references to CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack.

That would appear to directly contradict what White House Press Secretary Jay Carneysaid about the talking points in November.

"Those talking points originated from the intelligence community. They reflect the IC's best assessments of what they thought had happened," Carney told reporters at the White House press briefing on November 28, 2012. "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 institutions were changing the word 'consulate' to 'diplomatic facility' because 'consulate' was inaccurate."

Summaries of White House and State Department emails - some of which were first published by Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard - show that the State Department had extensive input into the editing of the talking points .



Hmmmmm...?

 

Already DEBUNKED a dozen+ times.

Keep trying to float it by, however...your desperation IS amusing....

 

I have to express my surprise that this has made it to the MSM.

I think we all knew there was something wrong with the administration's story - I mean yeah, some demonstrators happened to come across some left over RPG's and automatic rifles laying in the street and it's "hey, Achmed, let's scare these friendly Americans" is believable.

But they way they so effortfully avoided the issue at the time that them embracing it now is kind of grotesque; a welcome one but it kind of resonates with negatives in light of Hillary's "What difference, at this point, does it make?"

The near illiterate grammar notwithstanding, the utterance takes on prophesy status in the wake of the lies and deliberate misleads by both of these perps and their seemingly coercive cohorts in the media.

 

OK, when you get PWNED you try to change the subject, noted...

What I linked to debunked your claim that Clinton committed perjury.

Debunking this doesn't even require a link, there are a number of drafts, it's a committee, not everyone sees every draft, that's the way it works, there's just nothing there that proves anything, there's not even anything there that supports a strong case.
What's there is stuff that could be seen as consistent with speculation, but that's all you have after all these months and all this testimony, speculation.

 

Holy mackerel fish eaters!

Some things never change....blame BUSH is alive and well.

I think the issue has become one of who told the marines to stand down and why. The resources were there, armed and ready to deploy. You cannot blame Republican led cost cuts that were approved months later for that.

But thanks for reminding us of the complete and utter moral bankruptcy of the Obama administration.

 

White House emails reviewed by ABC News suggest the edits were made with extensive input from the State Department. The edits included requests from the State Department that references to the Al Qaeda-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia be deleted as well references to CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack.

That would appear to directly contradict what White House Press Secretary Jay Carneysaid about the talking points in November.

"Those talking points originated from the intelligence community. They reflect the IC's best assessments of what they thought had happened," Carney told reporters at the White House press briefing on November 28, 2012. "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 institutions were changing the word 'consulate' to 'diplomatic facility' because 'consulate' was inaccurate."

Summaries of White House and State Department emails - some of which were first published by Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard - show that the State Department had extensive input into the editing of the talking points .


Still having trouble getting your mind around it?