@PressSec says @rhodes44 email not released bc "explicitly not about Benghazi." It has section entitled "Benghazi" pic.twitter.com/SP3c5MynS6
— Jonathan Karl (@jonkarl) April 30, 2014
Jonathan Karl is an ABC News white house correspondent.
Thursday, May 1, 2014
ABC News: Email not released because "explicitly not about Benghazi" has section entitled "Benghazi"
Jonathan Karl is an ABC News white house correspondent.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
35 comments:
And we must be explicit, mustn't we?
Like what the meaning of is is.
Is it racism if Obama is not impeached over this? Or is it just more affirmative action?
Narcissists are often terrible liars, because they really don't give a shit what you think and are lying just to shut you up not to convince you. They're not interested in building a false coherent "narrative". They're just using a lie as another tool at hand to get their way.
When caught in a blatant lie, they'll do exactly what you see happening here --- prevaricate in order to run out the clock.
It turns out this Administration IS the most transparent in history, just not in a good way.
Transparently dishonest.
The email date tickles me...15 September 2012...when "the video did it" meme was promulgated ad hoc by General Dempsey on the morning of 12 September. Three days later they are still dithering and lying? YoungHegelian has it just right...pathological lying is all they have.
"Is it racism if Obama is not impeached over this?"
Pragmatism. The screw-ups make for better tools for the next election cycles. Letting it linger forces Democrats to take stands with or against the administration on all sorts of legislation.
Obama is not the problem, there's a whole mess of corruption involving the media, administration officials, and beyond, the problem that allowed him to use his power as he has. How do we go after the whole system? That's the challenge. Impeachment just distracts from that bigger task.
"This assessment may change as additional information is collected and analyzed and as currently available information continues to be evaluated."
You don't get smoking guns like this every day. Lurking within what looks like boiler-plate bureaucratese lies the ruination of the Obama presidency. You can't make this stuff up.
The WH Press Sec has all the credibility of a carny barker.
Keep defending this, Unreasonablebitch.
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam."
A real free press used to love exposing this sort of fraud. I hope they stay on it and restore some of their credibility.
"Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S."
President-Mom-Jeans said...
Keep defending this, Unreasonablebitch.
The lunatic fringe returns. Good to hear from you too.
David Burge @iowahawkblog
Wife: why are you covered in glitter and smell like alcohol and stripper perfume?
Me: I reject the premise of your question.
#JayCarneyStyle
Yes, only the lunatic fringe would question why it took over a year and a judges order to get an un-redacted version of this document turned over.
The section entitled "Benghazi" clearly shows that it has nothing to do with Benghazi.
You are a fucking stooge.
Another subtext:
Jonathan Karl (ABC) strikes a mortal blow against Candy Crowley (CNN).
Lie down with stooges, wake up with splooges
AnUnreasonableTroll said...
This assessment may change as additional information is collected and analyzed and as currently available information continues to be evaluated.
You don't get smoking guns like this every day. Lurking within what looks like boiler-plate bureaucratese lies the ruination of the Obama presidency. You can't make this stuff up.
Same as with the IRS emails.
All the Lefties have now is, "It wasn't sex".
But then, the whole Lefty paradigm is coming apart. That Jersey councilwoman, as much as Sterling, blew the lid off what Demos like Troll and Ritmo really think of blacks.
And we know ChoomCare is sinking by the bow.
And, of course, there's our Smart Diplomacy...
So it's all coming apart at once.
Now wonder Ritmo shows up here foaming at the mouth.
Sometimes there's a basis for reasonable people to disagree--there are tradeoffs, and the choice that seems best to anyone may depend in part on a person's values, or maybe an assessment of likely future effects. Debating those issues can be fun, and sometimes educational.
But this--this is just a case of whether you're willing to face the plain truth, or are such a partisan that you'll look for any possible rationalization of dishonest--and seemingly cowardly--behavior. This administration is presided over (loosely, I'll grant you) by a man whose minions were willing to pin the blame for their failures on a private citizen of the US, in full knowledge that in doing so they were lying. It is presided over by a man who did nothing to "get to the truth" of the matter, and whose administration continued to lie about its earlier lies. He, of course, either knew the truth--and therefore clearly endorsed the lies--or willingly avoided knowing the truth, thereby abdicating his core responsibilities.
All in order to win re-election to a job he is manifestly unqualified to hold.
I don't know how any reasonable, open-minded person can defend or minimize that.
When the extent of Nixon's malfeasance became known to them, top Republicans stopped defending him. They had honor.
Who are the honorable Democrats? I can think of Pat Caddell as one. Are there any others?
Anyone here?
Chip S. said...
Sometimes there's a basis for reasonable people to disagree
The good news here is that the American people are generally reasonable people and they have been unimpressed by the endless attempts to beat this 'scandal' up into an impeachable offence. They, correctly, view the loss of life in Libya in the broader context of prior administrations successes, or failures, in the Middle East.
AReasonableMan said...
The good news here is that the American people are generally reasonable people and they have been unimpressed by the endless attempts to beat this 'scandal' up into an impeachable offence.
Recent oponion poll: Americans nonplussed with Benghazi; support Hillary and wish to 'Move On'
Fox's New Benghazi Poll Is As Misleading As Its News Coverage.
When you decide to avoid a point, ARM, you really go all out.
The "impeachable" (hahahahahaha) offense doesn't lie in the Benghazi body count. It lies in the dereliction of duty (still waiting for that "situation room" photo of the prez w/ his advisors that night) and the subsequent scapegoating of a private citizen to cover up the dereliction of duty.
If it's really not a big deal, why did the WH go to such lengths to develop a false narrative?
Don't worry; I don't really expect you to answer that.
@ARM: that opinion poll seriously needs a judicial intervention, nest pass?
ARM implied: "A majority of Americans are on the wrong side of history."
@ARM: You may wonder why I sound "counterminoritarian," but it's because a minority of kooks can't subvert common horse sense.
AnUnreasonableTroll said...
Fox's New Benghazi Poll Is As Misleading As Its News Coverage.
Well, now we know who sends him and Ritmo here.
Say, "Hi", to Dr Evil next time you see him.
Chip S. said...
It (the impeachable offense) lies in the dereliction of duty
The Republican chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Howard "Buck" Mckeon of California, issued a statement later Thursday (today) that said his panel investigated the matter and found "no evidence that Department of State officials delayed the decision to deploy what few resources (the military) had available to respond."
Even Republican politicians directly involved in investigating the 'scandal' don't buy this.
and the subsequent scapegoating of a private citizen
Of all the various contortions required to pursue this 'scandal' the strangest is the championing of Nakoula, who posed as a Jewish Hollywood filmmaker in order to foment violent anti-semitic responses in Egypt. He is a bankrupt who has been convicted of dealing meth and, separately, of bank fraud. He also defrauded the 'actors' in his movie about the purpose of said movie. He wasn't scapegoated he was begging for trouble.
found "no evidence that Department of State officials delayed the decision to deploy what few resources (the military) had available to respond."
Cute.
If the DoS was waiting for instructions from a CiC who's busy reading My Pet Goat all night, this statement applies equally well.
Nice ad hominem on Video Guy, tho. Good to know that the Prez is authorized to send a mob after a guy as long as he's a rabble-rouser who's tight with a buck. Or something.
Allow me to repeat a key question: If there was no WH culpability in this, why the cover-up?
Chip S. said...
Allow me to repeat a key question: If there was no WH culpability in this, why the cover-up?
There has to have been a crime for there to have been a cover-up. We haven't established that initial condition yet.
Reasonable discussion of this issue here. If anyone is at fault it is the CIA who fed the WH bad intel.
There has to have been a crime for there to have been a cover-up.
Excuse me? Are you claiming that, by definition, there can't be a "cover-up" of a fuck-up by an administration? That may set a new standard for casuistry on this blog.
As for this..We haven't established that initial condition yet. Good to know that you're all for a thorough investigation.
Finally, at the link you provided Sullivan refers to "the CIA" as if it's a single entity. A much better source, I think, is Sharyl Attkisson, who's actually been investigating this for a long time, and continues to do so. She makes these points about "the" CIA:
Previously, emails showed that then-deputy national security adviser Denis McDonough, on Rhodes' behalf, assigned Hillary Clinton-aide Jake Sullivan to work with Deputy Director of the C.I.A. Mike Morell to edit the talking points on Benghazi.
…
In fact, in an early version of the government’s “talking points,” the C.I.A. stated that it had “produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al-Qa'ida in Benghazi and eastern Libya,”…
Morell seems like one of those DC insiders, like Jamie Gorelick, who always seems to fall on his ass and land in butter. Presumably he's learned the importance of pleasing his political patrons.
ARM .... beg to differ. By 14 September the CIA knew full well what had happened and was playing to their audience's wishes. That would be the administration of Barack Obama. On 12 September morning Gen. Dempsey promulgated the video meme in a phone call to a known anti-Islamic gadfly and blabber mouth. The CIA later merely aped what Dempsey (and unknown others) originated. To believe otherwise you have to have a really poor opinion and low tech knowledge of how communications are managed and sent.
If you can tell me who beside Dempsey made up the video protest story? It was in the wind by 1030 hours the morning of 12 September 2012.
ARM ... I think I've posted before that my opinion is tainted by what happened long ago in my first time in war. I do believe history repeats itself at the senior bureaucratic level. YMMV...
Senior leadership, such as Gen. Westmoreland and Robert Komer (CORDS) way back then famously said what LBJ wanted to hear (lied to him) and in November 1967 Westmoreland spoke (excerpted here from OSU's eHistory Archive):
"With 1968," he said, speaking before the National Press Club in Washington, "a new phase is starting .. we have reached an important point where the end begins to come into view." In a televised news conference, he used the phrase "light at the end of the tunnel" to describe improved U.S. fortunes, repeating almost word- for-word a prognostication made by French General Henri Navarre in May of 1953.
Subsequently, as we all know, following these prognostications came the Tet Offensive in 1968 and Dien Bien Phu in 1954. Rather distinct displays that the senior prognostications were wrong, willfully IMO.
Reporters like Jules Roy (paraphased: when we must barricade against children, we are lost) could have told both Westmoreland and Navarre what was coming, but they'd have been ignored...as Bernard Fall's 1961 book "Street Without Joy" was dismissed by the US Military before building up in RVN in the mid-60's after having Army special operators on the ground in Indo-China since 1959 with Operation Hotfoot/Project White Star as deep in as Laos. We had real intelligence, from on the scene personnel, and yet it was not what drove Executive actions from the White House or the Pentagon. It is always easy to blame the intelligence community, and special forces operators, because reality can be classified and put up out of sight.
In short, senior leaders, political and military, tend to repeat the same follies.Not becasuue they were previously successful physically, but becasue they were accepted politially, so once agian...and there we go. All was well in Libya, security forces were reduced on orders from a Deputy Secretary,...then came Benghazi.
Another question I've not heard answered authoritatively [if you have a source, please advise or link it] :
Specifically what was the work being carried out by the CIA Annex (they're always called "annexes")in Benghazi?
I am too verbose: my previous comment said briefly:
A lie of convenience is still a lie and can get men killed for that convenience.
Post a Comment