White House held a meeting that was "off the record" with reporters from 14 MSM hires

[HerbieHeadley]

White House holds 'deep background' Benghazi briefing - POLITICO.com

The existence of the meeting was off the record, it was conducted on "deep background."

Emails obtained by ABC News show that State Dept. spokesperson Victoria Nuland requested that the CIA scrub references to an Al Qaeda-linked group, which, Nuland told White House officials, “could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings."

"The session was announced to reporters in the wake of an ABC News report showing that White House and State Dept. officials were involved in revising the now-discredited CIA talking points about the attack on Benghazi."

--------------------

Friday preemptive move from the Hussein administration to try and move discussion from the Sunday talking heads and give marching orders.

Do not forget that 2+2=4 people.

How far we have fallen in real accountablity and a free press.

However, Obamas is still searching for those "folks" that were upset by the slander to the prophet of Islam that caused those "bumps in the road" and made the Hussein administration look like a bunch of lying incompetants or evil satan worshipers.

Take your pick.

 

[HerbieHeadley]

So what have we learned so far, eh?​

First, Gregory Hicks is the only person so far to speak in public about these events who was actually in Libya at the time. Hicks was the Deputy Chief of Mission in Tripoli, Libya -- that is, Deputy Ambassador. As soon as Ambassador Chris Stevens died, Hicks became Acting Ambassador to Libya.




However, we still have not heard from anyone who was in Benghazi during these events. The 30-40 survivors are still in mysterious seclusion. Their eyewitness accounts will offer future revelations.

[FONT=times new roman, times]

Second, Hicks dropped a bombshell: The USA never asked Libya for permission to fly through Libyan airspace to defend the consulate in Benghazi. The Obama administration never intended to come to the defense of Ambassador Stevens. Hicks -- fluent in Arabic and familiar with Libya's government -- testified that Libya would have granted permission.

Third, Hicks asked the U.S. military to help immediately at the start of the 7-hour siege of the Benghazi consulate. F-16 fighter jets could have reached Benghazi in 2 to 3 hours from the 31st Fighter Wing in Aviano, Italy, Hicks testified. The embassy's defense attaché was told that F-16's could be over the Consulate in 2-3 hours.

Fourth, there was indeed a "stand down" order preventing U.S. special forces from defending the Consulate, Hicks confirmed. Special forces at the U.S. embassy in Tripoli were ordered to "stand down" by General Carter F. Ham, Commander of U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM).

​

Fifth, a "FEST" response was denied by Hillary Clinton and the U.S. State Department. A "Foreign Emergency Support Team" is the U.S. Government's solution for this type of crisis. We learned that a FEST contains members of many agencies and departments, so that the FEST can access the full range of U.S. Government resources. ​

​

​

​

​

The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. -Obamas

​

​

​

​

​

​

[FONT=times new roman, times][FONT=times new roman, times][FONT=times new roman, times]Read more: Articles: What the Hearings Mean [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]​

[FONT=times new roman, times][FONT=times new roman, times][FONT=times new roman, times]Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=times new roman, times]​

[/FONT]​

[/FONT]



​

 

[tulc]

I'll take this serious when they convene Senate investigations of the 13+ attacks completely ignored by the Republicans under President Bush.
tulc(till then this is just more faux outrage from the party of faux outrage)

 

[HerbieHeadley]

I'll take this serious when they convene Senate investigations of the 13+ attacks completely ignored by the Republicans under President Bush.
tulc(till then this is just more faux outrage from the party of faux outrage)

So I gather the next administration will not need to answer anything until the the next Senate does something about the past.

This is part of the problem, however your "faux outrage" has only appeared in defense of lies and dereliction of duty.

I'm convinced the partisan past has jaded some to the point of having lost all moral compass.

 

[tulc]

So I gather the next administration will not need to answer anything until the the next Senate does something about the past.

This is part of the problem, however your "faux outrage" has only appeared in defense of lies and dereliction of duty.

I'm convinced the partisan past has jaded some to the point of having lost all moral compass.

Yep, the irony is thick in this thread. You defend (by ignoring them) 13+ other examples and only seem interested in just the one attack. when I was growing up? that was called "being a partisan"
tulc(hey Herbie!)

 

[HerbieHeadley]

Yep, the irony is thick in this thread. You defend (by ignoring them) 13+ other examples and only seem interested in just the one attack. when I was growing up? that was called "being a partisan"
tulc(hey Herbie!)

How about if you compare one of your non listed examples that even compare to the atrocity we have been under lately?

Huh tulc?

Or rather could you ask tulc for me?

 

[HerbieHeadley]

I got coffee!

 

[MachZer0]

I'll take this serious when they convene Senate investigations of the 13+ attacks completely ignored by the Republicans under President Bush.
tulc(till then this is just more faux outrage from the party of faux outrage)

In which of those attacks did Bush refuse to send help and then manufacture a lie to cover up his actions?

 

[DianeRhea]

In which of those attacks did Bush refuse to send help and then manufacture a lie to cover up his actions?

Probably all

 

[NightHawkeye]

Probably all

LOL ... in other words, you got nothing.

 

[MachZer0]

Probably all

Please provide the specifics

 

[MachZer0]

LOL ... in other words, you got nothing.

 

[tulc]

I got coffee!

I KNEW I could count on you bro!
tulc(could use some right now!)

 

[tulc]

How about if you compare one of your non listed examples that even compare to the atrocity we have been under lately?

Huh tulc?

Or rather could you ask tulc for me?

Not sure what your question is but here's my list:

2002 - June 14, Karachi, Pakistan: bomb explodes outside American consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 12. Linked to al-Qaeda.

2003 - May 12, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: suicide bombers kill 34, including 8 Americans, at housing compounds for Westerners. Al-Qaeda suspected.

2004 - May 29–31, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists attack the offices of a Saudi oil company in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, take foreign oil workers hostage in a nearby residential compound, leaving 22 people dead including 1 American.

June 11–19, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists kidnap and execute Paul Johnson Jr., an American, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 2 other Americans and BBC cameraman killed by gun attacks.

Dec. 6, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: terrorists storm the U.S. consulate, killing 5 consulate employees. 4 terrorists were killed by Saudi security.

2005 - Nov. 9, Amman, Jordan: suicide bombers hit 3 American hotels, Radisson, Grand Hyatt, and Days Inn, in Amman, Jordan, killing 57. Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility.

2006 - Sept. 13, Damascus, Syria: an attack by four gunman on the American embassy is foiled.

2007 - Jan. 12, Athens, Greece: the U.S. embassy is fired on by an anti-tank missile causing damage but no injuries.

Dec. 11, Algeria: more than 60 people are killed, including 11 United Nations staff members, when Al Qaeda terrorists detonate two car bombs near Algeria's Constitutional Council and the United Nations offices.

2008 - May 26, Iraq: a suicide bomber on a motorcycle kills six U.S. soldiers and wounds 18 others in Tarmiya.

June 24, Iraq: a suicide bomber kills at least 20 people, including three U.S. Marines, at a meeting between sheiks and Americans in Karmah, a town west of Baghdad.

June 12, Afghanistan: four American servicemen are killed when a roadside bomb explodes near a U.S. military vehicle in Farah Province.

July 13, Afghanistan: nine U.S.soldiers and at least 15 NATO troops die when Taliban militants boldly attack an American base in Kunar Province, which borders Pakistan. It's the most deadly against U.S. troops in three years.

Aug. 18 and 19, Afghanistan: as many as 15 suicide bombers backed by about 30 militants attack a U.S. military base, Camp Salerno, in Bamiyan. Fighting between U.S. troops and members of the Taliban rages overnight. No U.S. troops are killed.

Sept. 16, Yemen: a car bomb and a rocket strike the U.S. embassy in Yemen as staff arrived to work, killing 16 people, including 4 civilians. At least 25 suspected al-Qaeda militants are arrested for the attack.

Nov. 26, India: in a series of attacks on several of Mumbai's landmarks and commercial hubs that are popular with Americans and other foreign tourists, including at least two five-star hotels, a hospital, a train station, and a cinema. About 300 people are wounded and nearly 190 people die, including at least 5 Americans

and probably the reason there wasn't anything to twist in an effort to make a faux scandal out of them was...well no one in Congress seemed to care enough to ask any questions.
tulc(hopes this answers some of what you were asking)

 

[TerranceL]

I'll take this serious when they convene Senate investigations of the 13+ attacks completely ignored by the Republicans under President Bush.
tulc(till then this is just more faux outrage from the party of faux outrage)

Which of those 13+ attacks did the Bush administration leave their people to die?

 

[TerranceL]

Not sure what your question is but here's my list:



and probably the reason there wasn't anything to twist in an effort to make a faux scandal out of them was...well no one in Congress seemed to care enough to ask any questions.
tulc(hopes this answers some of what you were asking)

How many of those attacks took over 6 hours and were provided with zero military backup?

How many of those attacks did the government lie about?

We know the CIA told the Obama administration that the attacks was terrorist. The State department altered the memo taking out all mention of terrorist and adding in the stupidity about the video which Rice then went on tv to tell to the world.

So go on ahead and tell us where the Bush administration did that.

 

[tulc]

How many of those attacks took over 6 hours and were provided with zero military backup?

How many of those attacks did the government lie about?

We know the CIA told the Obama administration that the attacks was terrorist. The State department altered the memo taking out all mention of terrorist and adding in the stupidity about the video which Rice then went on tv to tell to the world.

So go on ahead and tell us where the Bush administration did that.

Hmmmm lies told about them? probably a couple (I don't know all of the specifics of the attacks under President Bush) but the silence from Congress was pretty deafening. And my guess guess why there weren't many lies told about them would be because no one asked anything about them. No one scrutinized in minute detail, (with corresponding crazed conspiracy theories and accusations of coverups) every aspect of them. Because when a Republican is in the White House a couple of hundred people dying in attacks is just business as usual. But once a Democrat is there the really REALLY big microscopes come out and the faux outrage machines work overtime to get their followers worked up to nice thick lather. Did people mishandle the situation? Seems likely, stupid things get done in situations like this. Do people try and cover their rear ends by lying or just "hedging the truth"? You bet. but this circus that the Republicans are running is just that: a circus, not an actual investigation with an eye to trying to prevent anything in the future. this is simply the beginning of the 2014 election cycle the overture for the grand opera of 2016.
tulc(assumes the over 200 people killed under President Bush will have to wait for their investigation to commence till after this one's over)

 

[TerranceL]

Hmmmm lies told about them? probably a couple (I don't know all of the specifics of the attacks under President Bush) but the silence from Congress was pretty deafening. And my guess guess why there weren't many lies told about them would be because no one asked anything about them. No one scrutinized in minute detail, (with corresponding crazed conspiracy theories and accusations of coverups) every aspect of them. Because when a Republican is in the White House a couple of hundred people dying in attacks is just business as usual. But once a Democrat is there the really REALLY big microscopes come out and the faux outrage machines work overtime to get their followers worked up to nice thick lather. Did people mishandle the situation? Seems likely, stupid things get done in situations like this. Do people try and cover their rear ends by lying or just "hedging the truth"? You bet. but this circus that the Republicans are running is just that: a circus, not an actual investigation with an eye to trying to prevent anything in the future. this is simply the beginning of the 2014 election cycle the overture for the grand opera of 2016.
tulc(assumes the over 200 people killed under President Bush will have to wait for their investigation to commence till after this one's over)

So you really don't care that you were lied to about what happened that day by the executive branch?

 

[EdwinWillers]

So you really don't care that you were lied to about what happened that day by the executive branch?

My guess?

No.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Hmmmm lies told about them? probably a couple (I don't know all of the specifics of the attacks under President Bush) but the silence from Congress was pretty deafening. And my guess guess why there weren't many lies told about them would be because no one asked anything about them. No one scrutinized in minute detail, (with corresponding crazed conspiracy theories and accusations of coverups) every aspect of them. Because when a Republican is in the White House a couple of hundred people dying in attacks is just business as usual. But once a Democrat is there the really REALLY big microscopes come out and the faux outrage machines work overtime to get their followers worked up to nice thick lather. Did people mishandle the situation? Seems likely, stupid things get done in situations like this. Do people try and cover their rear ends by lying or just "hedging the truth"? You bet. but this circus that the Republicans are running is just that: a circus, not an actual investigation with an eye to trying to prevent anything in the future. this is simply the beginning of the 2014 election cycle the overture for the grand opera of 2016.
tulc(assumes the over 200 people killed under President Bush will have to wait for their investigation to commence till after this one's over)

In other words, you have no facts to support your claims and are just floating the idea that similar things happened under Bush.