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

EdwinWillers

Well-Known Member
Jan 13, 2010
19,443
5,258
Galt's Gulch
✟8,420.00
Country
Niue
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
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.
"B... but Bush did...."
"B... but Bush said..."
"B... but Bush is..."
"B... but Bush..."
"B... but Bush..."

It's gets old, reading these persistent feeble attempts to deflect everything back to Bush (as if somehow to justify their representatives behaviors) doesn't it? :D

The real point is *even if* - I repeat, EVEN IF Bush did, Bush said, Bush is..., Bush..., Bush... , Bush..., the only thing these feeble attempts to deflect blame back to Bush do is:

1) Implicitly acknowledge the truth of what this administration is doing,
2) Use Bush as an excuse to justify such behaviors and,
3) Admit they could care less the illegality, the immorality, the brazenness of the acts, regardless who did it.

...which is what should really scare us - for if the behavior of those acting as representatives is illegal, immoral, brazen and otherwise intolerable - and those they represent don't care, but will in fact JUSTIFY, shift blame, deny...?

That party is in a world of hurt, as is the nation where such a party rules.
 
  • Like
Reactions: seashale76
Upvote 0

DianeRhea

Newbie
Apr 18, 2013
266
12
✟15,485.00
Faith
Non-Denom
"B... but Bush did...."
"B... but Bush said..."
"B... but Bush is..."
"B... but Bush..."
"B... but Bush..."

It's gets old, reading these persistent feeble attempts to deflect everything back to Bush (as if somehow to justify their representatives behaviors) doesn't it? :D

The real point is *even if* - I repeat, EVEN IF Bush did, Bush said, Bush is..., Bush..., Bush... , Bush..., the only thing these feeble attempts to deflect blame back to Bush do is:

1) Implicitly acknowledge the truth of what this administration is doing,
2) Use Bush as an excuse to justify such behaviors and,
3) Admit they could care less the illegality, the immorality, the brazenness of the acts, regardless who did it.

...which is what should really scare us - for if the behavior of those acting as representatives is illegal, immoral, brazen and otherwise intolerable - and those they represent don't care, but will in fact JUSTIFY, shift blame, deny...?

That party is in a world of hurt, as is the nation where such a party rules.

When are you Republicans going to stop blaming Obama for every thing? It is really getting old. Get over it already that's in the past.
 
Upvote 0

MachZer0

Caught Between Barack and a Hard Place
Mar 9, 2005
61,058
2,302
✟86,609.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
When are you Republicans going to stop blaming Obama for every thing? It is really getting old. Get over it already that's in the past.
There are grieving parents that want answers as to why their sons died while Obama ignored them. Oh I forgot. they should get over it, it happened a long time ago, according to this administration
 
Upvote 0

EdwinWillers

Well-Known Member
Jan 13, 2010
19,443
5,258
Galt's Gulch
✟8,420.00
Country
Niue
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
When are you Republicans going to stop blaming Obama for every thing? It is really getting old. Get over it already that's in the past.
How about we stop blaming him when he quits behaving in egregiously blameworthy ways?

...And when are progressives ever going to start acknowledging and admitting what he's doing is wrong?

Progressives can't have it both ways - outrageous behavior and no consequences (though I realize that's what many progressives do in fact believe...)
 
Upvote 0

EdwinWillers

Well-Known Member
Jan 13, 2010
19,443
5,258
Galt's Gulch
✟8,420.00
Country
Niue
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
There are grieving parents that want answers as to why their sons died while Obama ignored them. Oh I forgot. they should get over it, it happened a long time ago, according to this administration
"What difference at this point does it make???" - Hillary Clinton
 
Upvote 0

tulc

loves "SO'S YER MOM!! posts!
May 18, 2002
49,401
18,801
68
✟271,570.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
In other words, you have no facts to support your claims and are just floating the idea that similar things happened under Bush.

Much like the whole Benghazi debacle huh? :sorry:
tulc(which seems to consist solely of speculation and foaming talking heads) :wave:
 
Upvote 0

HerbieHeadley

North American Energy Independence Now!
Dec 23, 2007
9,746
1,184
✟15,282.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
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. :sorry:
tulc(hopes this answers some of what you were asking) :wave:
Your list is just a basic record of bombs, suicide attacks, some were not even really involving America and even included failed atempts. :confused:

All I'm seeing from your list is a logical fallacy of comparing apples and oranges. You were asked to show me where Bush could have prevented the lose of life in any of those attacks that happened while he was President, or that he lied about them and tried to cover up what happened.

So far your list is a total fail and there is a lot more to Benghazi than an out of control Obama political campaign.

PUBLISHED: 13:14 EST, 15 September 2012 | UPDATED: 11:29 EST, 26 September 2012

"Questions are being asked about the preparedness of the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, after it was revealed that there were four attacks on diplomatic targets in the Libyan city in the months leading up to the killing of the U.S. ambassador on Wednesday.

Despite Pres[__]ent Obama's administration claiming that there was no 'actionable intelligence' before the attack, on June 6th an IED was thrown at the perimeter of the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi and on August 5th, just over a month before the deadly assault an International Committee of the Red Cross building in the city was hit by rocket propelled grenades.

'This (the U.S. Consulate) was a place that was targeted months before with an IED (improvised explosive device),' said Rep. Mike Rogers, chairman of the House intelligence committee who has been briefed on the attack and investigation.

He told Fox News, 'It's clearly a target that they wanted to hit and they wanted to cause casualties. ... It's just too many coincidences here'."
Obama refused to attack and defend Benghazi because there were treasonous actions being performed after Obamas unConstitutional Libyan war against Gadaffi and large arsenals of arms were being distributed to America's enemies through another type of Fast and Furious against America's interest through the Hussein administration. Remember the Hussein administration talking about and weighing the release of blind Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman? There is more than meets the eye here, much more.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

HerbieHeadley

North American Energy Independence Now!
Dec 23, 2007
9,746
1,184
✟15,282.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
Carney Scrubs His Way Through Another Press Briefing
"This afternoon’s White House press briefing was extraordinary. Spokesman Jay Carney stood by his now thoroughly discredited claim that the White House made just one “stylistic” edit to the Benghazi talking points. He invoked the name of Mitt Romney twice, and the “previous administration” once, the latter in connection with the IRS’ apology to conservative groups for targeting them during an election year. For the most part, Carney danced around the press corps despite the fact that many in the room were unhappy to have been left out of the afternoon’s off-the-record or “deep background” meeting with select but as yet unnamed members of the media. Carney was more prepared for the sparring match than his opposites were.

Who was in that press meeting? What was its purpose? That’s for Jay Carney and friends to know, and for you not to find out."

Jay Carney Spends 7 Minutes Ducking Questions On The Benghazi Talking Points Process - YouTube

Jay Carney Spends 7Minutes Ducking Questions On The Benghazi Talking Points Process

Earthquake: Did Carney Presser End MSM Monolith?

"The most notable takeaway from Jay Carney’s incomprehensible Friday appearance had little to do with his Klingon grammar. Carney does not represent the historical value of the event – you should be wise to forget his performance, and instead take note that he was flanked by the entire room, without exception.
Do not underestimate the significance: the Obama administration has not faced such an onslaught of truth-seeking since he took office in 2008, and further, no Democratic administration has been charged from all sides like this in recent memory."

Full Carney rewrite of history.
5/10/13: White House Press Briefing - YouTube

WhiteWashing_zps2acb7e75.jpg
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

NightHawkeye

Work-in-progress
Site Supporter
Jul 5, 2010
45,814
10,318
✟803,537.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0

HerbieHeadley

North American Energy Independence Now!
Dec 23, 2007
9,746
1,184
✟15,282.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
Ted Cruz has 12 Questions for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton #Benghazi
• Why was the State Department unwilling to provide the requested level of security to Benghazi?

• Were there really no military assets available to provide relief during the seven hours of the attacks? If so, why not? During the attacks, were any military assets ordered to stand down?

• If the Secretary of Defense thought there was “no question” this was a coordinated terrorist attack, why did Ambassador Susan Rice, Secretary Clinton, and President Obama all tell the American people that the cause was a “spontaneous demonstration” about an Internet video?

More at link.

gmc10913620130508091900.jpg



 
Upvote 0

HerbieHeadley

North American Energy Independence Now!
Dec 23, 2007
9,746
1,184
✟15,282.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
Upvote 0

Merope

Well-Known Member
Apr 29, 2011
1,332
36
✟1,726.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
White House holds 'deep background' Benghazi briefing - POLITICO.com

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

And?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

tulc

loves "SO'S YER MOM!! posts!
May 18, 2002
49,401
18,801
68
✟271,570.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
How about we let the viewers judge context:
The aforementioned quote occurs at 1:20 in the video.

How about we SHOW how out of context (and edited for that matter) it is:
Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Madam Secretary. I'd like to join my colleagues in thanking you for your service sincerely, and also appreciate the fact that you’re here testifying and glad that you’re looking in good health.
Clinton: Thank you.
Johnson: Were you fully aware in real time -- and again, I realize how big your job is and everything is erupting in the Middle East at this time -- were you fully aware of these 20 incidents that were reported in the ARB[State Department Accountability Review Board] in real time?
Clinton: I was aware of the ones that were brought to my attention. They were part of our ongoing discussion about the deteriorating threat environment in eastern Libya. We certainly were very conscious of them. I was assured by our security professionals that repairs were under way, additional security upgrades had taken place.
Johnson: Thank you. Did you see personally the cable on -- I believe it was August 12th -- specifically asking for, basically, reinforcements for the security detail that was going to be evacuating or leaving in August? Did you see that personally?
Clinton: No, sir.
Johnson: OK. When you read the ARB, it strikes me as how certain the people were that the attacks started at 9:40 Benghazi time. When was the first time you spoke to -- or have you ever spoken to -- the returnees, the evacuees? Did you personally speak to those folks?
Clinton: I‘ve spoken to one of them, but I waited until after the ARB had done its investigation because I did not want there to be anybody raising any issue that I had spoken to anyone before the ARB conducted its investigation.
Johnson: How many people were evacuated from Libya?
Clinton: Well, the numbers are a little bit hard to pin down because of our other friends --
Johnson: Approximately?
Clinton: Approximately, 25 to 30.
Johnson: Did anybody in the State Department talk to those folks very shortly afterwards?
Clinton: There was discussion going on afterwards, but once the investigation started, the FBI spoke to them before we spoke to them, and so other than our people in Tripoli -- which, I think you’re talking about Washington, right?
Johnson: The point I’m making is, a very simple phone call to these individuals, I think, would’ve ascertained immediately that there was no protest prior to this. This attack started at 9:40 p.m. Benghazi time and it was an assault. I appreciate the fact that you called it an assault. But I’m going back to then-Ambassador [Susan] Rice five days later going on the Sunday shows and, what I would say, is purposefully misleading the American public. Why wasn’t that known? And again, I appreciate the fact that the transparency of this hearing, but why weren’t we transparent to that point in time?
Clinton: Well, first of all, Senator, I would say that once the assault happened, and once we got our people rescued and out, our most immediate concern was, number one, taking care of their injuries. As I said, I still have a DS [Diplomatic Security] agent at Walter Reed seriously injured -- getting them into Frankfurt, Ramstein to get taken care of, the FBI going over immediately to start talking to them. We did not think it was appropriate for us to talk to them before the FBI conducted their interviews. And we did not -- I think this is accurate, sir -- I certainly did not know of any reports that contradicted the IC [Intelligence Community] talking points at the time that Ambassador Rice went on the TV shows. And you know I just want to say that people have accused Ambassador Rice and the administration of misleading Americans. I can say trying to be in the middle of this and understanding what was going on, nothing could be further from the truth. Was information developing? Was the situation fluid? Would we reach conclusions later that weren’t reached initially? And I appreciate the --
Johnson: But, Madame Secretary, do you disagree with me that a simple phone call to those evacuees to determine what happened wouldn’t have ascertained immediately that there was no protest? That was a piece of information that could have been easily, easily obtained?
Clinton: But, Senator, again—
Johnson: Within hours, if not days?
Clinton: Senator, you know, when you’re in these positions, the last thing you want to do is interfere with any other process going on, number one—
Johnson: I realize that’s a good excuse.
Clinton: Well, no, it’s the fact. Number two, I would recommend highly you read both what the ARB said about it and the classified ARB because, even today, there are questions being raised. Now, we have no doubt they were terrorists, they were militants, they attacked us, they killed our people. But what was going on and why they were doing what they were doing is still unknown --
Johnson: No, again, we were misled that there were supposedly protests and that something sprang out of that -- an assault sprang out of that -- and that was easily ascertained that that was not the fact, and the American people could have known that within days and they didn’t know that.
Clinton: With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator. Now, honestly, I will do my best to answer your questions about this, but the fact is that people were trying in real time to get to the best information. The IC has a process, I understand, going with the other committees to explain how these talking points came out. But you know, to be clear, it is, from my perspective, less important today looking backwards as to why these militants decided they did it than to find them and bring them to justice, and then maybe we’ll figure out what was going on in the meantime.
Johnson: OK. Thank you, Madame Secretary.
as we can see it's simply five words (with 3 critical words edited out of the sentence supposedly being quoted) removed from context and spun like a top to fit the Republican narrative. :wave:
tulc(in case anyone was curious) :sorry:
 
Upvote 0

NightHawkeye

Work-in-progress
Site Supporter
Jul 5, 2010
45,814
10,318
✟803,537.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
See post #36. :wave:
tulc(nice collection of lies by the way) :D
Hi, tulc. :wave:

Just so you know. Those are not lies. It's a political cartoon ... intended to be thought provoking. After all, Hillary herself asked the question, "What difference at this point does it make?"

That's a really good question, btw. Just the truth. :thumbsup:
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

JCSr

Gunshine State
Sep 6, 2012
3,370
66
✟11,486.00
Faith
Agnostic
Politics
US-Democrat
Hi, tulc. :wave:

Just so you know. Those are not lies. It's a political cartoon ... intended to be thought provoking. After all, Hillary herself asked the question "What does it matter?"

That's a really good question, btw. Just the truth. :thumbsup:

You keep missing the whole point. Clinton said:



What difference at his point does it make?
not

"What does it matter"

Why do you ignore the actual quote while making one up?


 
  • Like
Reactions: USincognito
Upvote 0