Lawsuit forces release of email: White House advisor told Rice to say Benghazi was due to "internet video"--despite denials
If you're like about 60 percent of Americans you work--often hard--to
keep food on the table and pay the mortgage or rent. You play by the
rules, pay taxes, try hard to raise your kids right.
You're certainly not stupid.
Problem is, since it takes so much of your time doing all of the above, you can't keep up with the bullshit being pushed daily by Team Obama and the Democrats.
And frankly, you probably don't want to actually *be* informed--because it's really depressing being lied to constantly. Depressing watching them cook the books on unemployment, deficits, national debt, the number of Americans who've signed up for Obamacare, the number who have had their health insurance cancelled--by the specific provisions of the Obamacare law--everything.
So between not having time or the information to know what "your" government is up to, and not really wanting bad news, you're totally dependent on what the government and their totally-devoted supporters in the press tell you.
Let's see how well that's working:
On September 11th, 2012--just eight weeks before the presidential election that would determine whether we'd be saddled with Barack Hussein Obama for another four years--a group of heavily armed Muslims attacked a U.S. facility in Libya.
All but one of the local (i.e. Libyan, Muslim) security guards vanished--reportedly tipped off by the attackers. But if the attackers expected to walk right in and take whatever they wanted, they got a surprise: Defying orders, two incredibly brave former SEALs who were responsible for security drove two miles to the compound, fought their way through the attackers and started defending the place while they searched for our missing ambassador and other Americans.
Highly trained, highly skilled and incredibly courageous, the pair managed to hold off the hundred or so attackers for eight hours. During this time they were in radio contact with other U.S. personnel in the annex they'd driven in from. They asked for help.
Though the personnel in the annex had weapons, no one was dispatched to help.
A reasonable question is, why not?
Finally the two American defenders were killed, along with our ambassador and another state department employee.
If this had happened when a Republican was president the media would have swarmed all over the events, asking why no one helped the two defenders; if the government had had been any warning of the attack; asking why security measures had--astonishingly--been reduced just before the anniversary of 9/11.
There were rumors that the U.S. military had started a rescue attempt, but had been ordered to stop. Was that true? So-called "reporters" for the mainstream media had no interest in asking. Had a Republican been president, a reasonably competent media would have chased these down. If the military started a rescue, who gave the order to stand down? When was the president notified about the attack? Did he give any orders? If so, what were they? If not, where was the president during the attack, and what was he doing that was so important that no one notified him?
Of course since the Mainstream Lying Media is 100 percent Democrat-loving, they never asked those questions.
In fact, with the exception of one brave woman, they never asked any questions that might embarrass anyone in the Obama administration--including Hillary Clinton.
For example, as a piece of theater, to persuade voters that the State Department (then run by SecState Hillary Clinton) was determined to discipline any guilty parties, State announced that it had "fired" four mid-level employees--which it conveniently refused to name. When conservative groups later found that the four had simply been transferred and neither fired nor even demoted, the media had no interest at all in asking why State had lied.
The majority-Republican House had other ideas. They asked the Obama administration to turn over all emails and similar documents related to the event. In particular, the reps wanted to know why the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations--at the time Susan Rice--went on the big five Sunday talk shows after the attack and said that the attack was simply a "spontaneous demonstration" sparked Muslim anger over a YouTube clip critical of Islam. Supposedly the "spontaneous demonstration" had just "gotten out of hand."
The problem with this story was that no one in the government could provide any actual evidence that any government agency had actually reached that conclusion, let alone how anyone could have done so. In fact, there was considerable evidence to the contrary--that officials knew from the beginning that the attack was carefully planned. In fact the president of Libya said the same thing.
What prompted Rice to make the "spontaneous demonstration" claim? Experienced Washington hands knew it was astronomically unlikely that she simply invented the story herself. But in that case, where did she get the "spontaneous demonstration caused by a video clip" claim?
Because Obama had repeatedly said his policies had "al-Qaeda on the run," if the public learned that the deadly attack was actually carefully planned it would contradict that claim. Coming just weeks before election day, this could lose the election for Obama. But if the attack was merely a "spontaneous demonstration" sparked by anger over a video--and if no one had called off a rescue mission--Obama would be home free.
But the White House repeatedly denied having any input to the claim. They said the claim came from the CIA. But despite early lies from CIA deputy Mike Morrell, when pressed, the CIA denied authorship. Then Team Obama said the information came from State. Indeed, Hillary had said the same thing just a day or so after the attack. But when pressed for the source of the information, State eventually denied being the source.
During the whole time, the White House continued to deny any involvement. Moreover, when a House committee asked the administration for copies of all emails on the subject, the Obama administration released nothing of substance.
Finally last week, following a court order in a lawsuit by watchdog group Judicial Watch, the administration was forced to release an email from the "deputy national security director for strategic communications"--a guy named Ben Rhodes--to ambassador Rice, telling her what to say about the attack.
Rhodes wrote that Rice should “underscore” that the events in Benghazi were “protests . . . rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.” “Reinforce the president and administration’s strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges.”
Other than the fact that this was a deliberate lie--remember, officials already knew this was the work of terrorists--you need to know about three more things about this:
First, Ben Rhodes' brother--David--just happens to be president of CBS News. Unless the brothers have a rivalry going, the chances of you seeing anything remotely critical of Obama on CBS are virtually zero.
Second: Out of all the reporters in the mainstream media, exactly one was really digging into the story of what really happened in Benghazi. Her name is Sharyl Attkisson, and she was a highly respected reporter for CBS. She now no longer works for the network and claims CBS discouraged her from reporting on her findings, and declined to air stories she reported about her findings.
Think the fact that the "deputy national security director for strategic communications" and the president of CBS news are brothers might have any bearing on that?
Third: Despite numerous subpoenas from Congress, the administration never handed over the above e-mail. The administration has found that it can defy subpoenas without consequence.
How different life was when, say, Nixon was president, eh? Had Nixon ignored a congressional subpoena the media would have had that in three-inch-high headlines on page one for a week. But when their darling, their Precious, ignores a subpoena, not a word of criticism is written or broadcast.
The connections by marriage or family between the Obama administration and the Lying Media are legion. It's really amazing. More on that later. For now, ask yourself why the Obama administration brazenly lied to congress--and to the voters.
But of course, it got their Precious re-elected, which was all that mattered.
You're certainly not stupid.
Problem is, since it takes so much of your time doing all of the above, you can't keep up with the bullshit being pushed daily by Team Obama and the Democrats.
And frankly, you probably don't want to actually *be* informed--because it's really depressing being lied to constantly. Depressing watching them cook the books on unemployment, deficits, national debt, the number of Americans who've signed up for Obamacare, the number who have had their health insurance cancelled--by the specific provisions of the Obamacare law--everything.
So between not having time or the information to know what "your" government is up to, and not really wanting bad news, you're totally dependent on what the government and their totally-devoted supporters in the press tell you.
Let's see how well that's working:
On September 11th, 2012--just eight weeks before the presidential election that would determine whether we'd be saddled with Barack Hussein Obama for another four years--a group of heavily armed Muslims attacked a U.S. facility in Libya.
All but one of the local (i.e. Libyan, Muslim) security guards vanished--reportedly tipped off by the attackers. But if the attackers expected to walk right in and take whatever they wanted, they got a surprise: Defying orders, two incredibly brave former SEALs who were responsible for security drove two miles to the compound, fought their way through the attackers and started defending the place while they searched for our missing ambassador and other Americans.
Highly trained, highly skilled and incredibly courageous, the pair managed to hold off the hundred or so attackers for eight hours. During this time they were in radio contact with other U.S. personnel in the annex they'd driven in from. They asked for help.
Though the personnel in the annex had weapons, no one was dispatched to help.
A reasonable question is, why not?
Finally the two American defenders were killed, along with our ambassador and another state department employee.
If this had happened when a Republican was president the media would have swarmed all over the events, asking why no one helped the two defenders; if the government had had been any warning of the attack; asking why security measures had--astonishingly--been reduced just before the anniversary of 9/11.
There were rumors that the U.S. military had started a rescue attempt, but had been ordered to stop. Was that true? So-called "reporters" for the mainstream media had no interest in asking. Had a Republican been president, a reasonably competent media would have chased these down. If the military started a rescue, who gave the order to stand down? When was the president notified about the attack? Did he give any orders? If so, what were they? If not, where was the president during the attack, and what was he doing that was so important that no one notified him?
Of course since the Mainstream Lying Media is 100 percent Democrat-loving, they never asked those questions.
In fact, with the exception of one brave woman, they never asked any questions that might embarrass anyone in the Obama administration--including Hillary Clinton.
For example, as a piece of theater, to persuade voters that the State Department (then run by SecState Hillary Clinton) was determined to discipline any guilty parties, State announced that it had "fired" four mid-level employees--which it conveniently refused to name. When conservative groups later found that the four had simply been transferred and neither fired nor even demoted, the media had no interest at all in asking why State had lied.
The majority-Republican House had other ideas. They asked the Obama administration to turn over all emails and similar documents related to the event. In particular, the reps wanted to know why the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations--at the time Susan Rice--went on the big five Sunday talk shows after the attack and said that the attack was simply a "spontaneous demonstration" sparked Muslim anger over a YouTube clip critical of Islam. Supposedly the "spontaneous demonstration" had just "gotten out of hand."
The problem with this story was that no one in the government could provide any actual evidence that any government agency had actually reached that conclusion, let alone how anyone could have done so. In fact, there was considerable evidence to the contrary--that officials knew from the beginning that the attack was carefully planned. In fact the president of Libya said the same thing.
What prompted Rice to make the "spontaneous demonstration" claim? Experienced Washington hands knew it was astronomically unlikely that she simply invented the story herself. But in that case, where did she get the "spontaneous demonstration caused by a video clip" claim?
Because Obama had repeatedly said his policies had "al-Qaeda on the run," if the public learned that the deadly attack was actually carefully planned it would contradict that claim. Coming just weeks before election day, this could lose the election for Obama. But if the attack was merely a "spontaneous demonstration" sparked by anger over a video--and if no one had called off a rescue mission--Obama would be home free.
But the White House repeatedly denied having any input to the claim. They said the claim came from the CIA. But despite early lies from CIA deputy Mike Morrell, when pressed, the CIA denied authorship. Then Team Obama said the information came from State. Indeed, Hillary had said the same thing just a day or so after the attack. But when pressed for the source of the information, State eventually denied being the source.
During the whole time, the White House continued to deny any involvement. Moreover, when a House committee asked the administration for copies of all emails on the subject, the Obama administration released nothing of substance.
Finally last week, following a court order in a lawsuit by watchdog group Judicial Watch, the administration was forced to release an email from the "deputy national security director for strategic communications"--a guy named Ben Rhodes--to ambassador Rice, telling her what to say about the attack.
Rhodes wrote that Rice should “underscore” that the events in Benghazi were “protests . . . rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.” “Reinforce the president and administration’s strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges.”
Other than the fact that this was a deliberate lie--remember, officials already knew this was the work of terrorists--you need to know about three more things about this:
First, Ben Rhodes' brother--David--just happens to be president of CBS News. Unless the brothers have a rivalry going, the chances of you seeing anything remotely critical of Obama on CBS are virtually zero.
Second: Out of all the reporters in the mainstream media, exactly one was really digging into the story of what really happened in Benghazi. Her name is Sharyl Attkisson, and she was a highly respected reporter for CBS. She now no longer works for the network and claims CBS discouraged her from reporting on her findings, and declined to air stories she reported about her findings.
Think the fact that the "deputy national security director for strategic communications" and the president of CBS news are brothers might have any bearing on that?
Third: Despite numerous subpoenas from Congress, the administration never handed over the above e-mail. The administration has found that it can defy subpoenas without consequence.
How different life was when, say, Nixon was president, eh? Had Nixon ignored a congressional subpoena the media would have had that in three-inch-high headlines on page one for a week. But when their darling, their Precious, ignores a subpoena, not a word of criticism is written or broadcast.
The connections by marriage or family between the Obama administration and the Lying Media are legion. It's really amazing. More on that later. For now, ask yourself why the Obama administration brazenly lied to congress--and to the voters.
But of course, it got their Precious re-elected, which was all that mattered.
posted by SF at
12:22 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home