Libya Coverup -- Who gets thrown under the bus? Hillary or Barack?

[Veritas]

"Some argue McCain shouldn't be condemning Ambassador Susan Rice since he supported Condoleezza Rice for Secretary of State after she made false statements about weapons of mass destruction when making the case for invading Iraq when she was National Security Adviser. McCain and other Republicans defended her integrity and said anyone who opposed her was playing politics. Tonight Anderson Cooper asks the senator if there's a double standard"

http://ac360.blogs.c...-to-pres-obama/

From Politico:

In explaining why Obama reacted so viscerally, White House aides pointed out that McCain and Graham received the same talking points from intelligence officials that Rice used when she claimed the Benghazi attack was caused by an anti-Islamic video. They also said Republican senators defended Condoleezza Rice, President George W. Bush’s national security adviser, when she repeated faulty intelligence in the lead-up to the Iraq War.

 

[delldude]

From Politico:

And what was it???

Condi went with a joint resolution passed by Congress.

Did Congress pass a joint resolution to support the lie that a video inspired the murder of four Americans?

 

[Ms Tree]

No less than the 5000 who died in Iraq/Afghanistan or the countless others who have lost their lives due to the ignorance of government and apathy of te people.

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

No less than the 5000 who died in Iraq/Afghanistan or the countless others who have lost their lives due to the ignorance of government and apathy of te people.

It is completely different with a Democratic President that they hate.

 

[delldude]

It is completely different with a Democratic President that they hate.

He's talking Bushie , Dude.

No one in MSM discusses the 2000+ dead in Obama's war.

 

[eolesen]

With my tin foil hat on for a second, what are all you "no WMD'ers" going to do if Syria is suddenly found to have Saddam's stash? It's not like there was plenty of time for it to cross the border while the US was still trying diplomacy and waiting for the UN to think about scheduling a hearing to discuss getting around to acting...

 

[eolesen]

Petraeus will testify, voluntarily before congress.

Holder just retracted his ball sack.

He is said to be an honorable man.
I'm anxious to see if he puts truth and country ahead of CYA.

And Petraeus did the honorable thing --- the talking points CIA issued and gave to the White House referred to it as a terrorist attack, and mentioned Al Qaeda:

Petraeus’ initial report included a specific mention of an al-Qaida role in the attacks, but that mention was removed when the CIA’s report was edited by officials at the Department of Justice, the Department State, the White House’s National Security Council, and various agency public-affairs offices, King said.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/16/peter-king-wh-edited-cia-report-to-hide-al-qaida-role-in-benghazi/

Now... who edited the talking points? We know why they were whitewashed.

Essentially, the White House lied to the American public and the world.

And this is the guy y'all wanted to keep?...

 

[700UW]

 

[eolesen]

I asked 700 a bunch of questions the last time you posted that drivel. Got answers yet?

* How many of these took place while POTUS was watching on live video?

* How many of those took place in locations where the ambassador had specifically asked for increased security but it was denied?

* How many of those were battles drawn out over several hours, where there was actually time to send in reinforcements?

* How many of those resulted in the White House spin room changing the CIA's talking points to make them more politically correct and less damaging to the "We've got Al Qaeda on the run!" and "I killed Osama" narratives?

Answers not expected.

 

[700UW]

Ask Bush.

 

[SparrowHawk]

Ask Bush.

Bush? Wasn't he President like five years ago? Four years and 6 Trillion in new debt ago?

Supporters of all government edicts use humanitarian arguments to justify them.

Humanitarian arguments are always used to justify government mandates related to the economy, monetary policy, foreign policy, and personal liberty. This is on purpose to make it more difficult to challenge. But, initiating violence for humanitarian reasons is still violence. Good intentions are no excuse and are just as harmful as when people use force with bad intentions. The results are always negative.
The immoral use of force is the source of man’s political problems. Sadly, many religious groups, secular organizations, and psychopathic authoritarians endorse government initiated force to change the world. Even when the desired goals are well-intentioned—or especially when well-intentioned—the results are dismal. The good results sought never materialize. The new problems created require even more government force as a solution. The net result is institutionalizing government initiated violence and morally justifying it on humanitarian grounds
.
This is the same fundamental reason our government uses force for invading other countries at will, central economic planning at home, and the regulation of personal liberty and habits of our citizens.

It is rather strange, that unless one has a criminal mind and no respect for other people and their property, no one claims it’s permissible to go into one’s neighbor’s house and tell them how to behave, what they can eat, smoke and drink or how to spend their money.

Yet, rarely is it asked why it is morally acceptable that a stranger with a badge and a gun can do the same thing in the name of law and order. Any resistance is met with brute force, fines, taxes, arrests, and even imprisonment. This is done more frequently every day without a proper search warrant.

 

[700UW]

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/11/20/1219641/susan-rice-talking-points-cia/

 

[777 fixer]

On September 11, 2012, four Americans died in Libya at the hands of terrorists, and it wasn't a surprise.

It's a fact that security staffing was reduced on September 1, and that the late Ambassador Stevens had requested that the security levels be maintained where they were prior to the reduction...

It's a fact that embassy staff knew and communicated they were at high risk, yet security wasn't increased.

It's now coming out that State knew the morning after the event it was a planned attack, yet for a week, representatives of State, The White House, Obama himself, and even the Obama Campaign blamed this on a video trailer...

With all flow information continuing to come out about the coverup, denial, lying about how our ambassador was murdered, it's now a legitimate question of who gets held accountable for this, and what the ramifications are.

We know who won't allow themselves to be thrown under the bus --- the Pentagon and CIA. Pentagon doesn't determine embassy security, nor does CIA. I suspect that a lot of the information that will eventually hang this on the politicians is coming from the military and intelligence communities --- they tend to take things like, oh, defending human life, seriously.... They're also largely career professionals, and not political appointees.



Assume Hillary is held responsible.... At this point, she should probably resign. It's already likely her term as SecState will be forever tainted by this. State owns the security for our embassies and consulates. But, I don't see her falling on her sword. She knows she's done as SecState if Obama loses, and she's already hinted at not serving in a second term. There's no need for her to resign right now.

Regardless, there are folks like Bears who are convinced that Hillary will be able to over come anything and run in 2016. I'm not so sure. Opponents will be able to say "Hillary didn't listen, and people died".


Assume Barack is held responsible.... It's by far his biggest foreign policy blunder... The campaign can't continue to use the "GM survived, Osama died" tag-line without someone adding "So did Amabassador Stevens and three Americans".

He knows he can't throw Hillary under the bus, because it potentially poisons the well for the factions in the party who are allegiant to the Clintons over Obama. I don't see Bill or Hillary ever publicly saying "Don't Vote, because Obama F**** Us", but there certainly are other ways to send that message to the faithful.


Regardless, someone needs to be held accountable and responsible. This isn't going away.

And it won't go away in 2016, either.

Four people tragically die in Libya and youy foam at teh mouth. 4000+ die in Iraq and not a peep.

 

[Knotbuyinit]

http://thinkprogress...ing-points-cia/

Are they suggesting that an aide to Clapper overruled David Petraeus’ assessment of Benghazi?

 

[delldude]

Four people tragically die in Libya and youy foam at teh mouth. 4000+ die in Iraq and not a peep.

Government didn't lie to the people about Iraq.................or did they?