New bits of information feed GOP's claim that Benghazi is huge liability for Obama, Clinton

  • Article by: CHARLES BABINGTON , Associated Press
  • Updated: May 11, 2013 - 6:25 PM
  • 32
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
pitythefoolsMay. 11, 1310:40 AM

I wonder if the Republicans understand that all you get from grasping at straws is at best straw.

6
6
omitfactsMay. 11, 1311:07 AM

Pity, or someone could be found guilty of perjury and be held accountable like they should be. People lost their lives, and team Obama covered it up for political reasons. If this had happened under a republican president, you would be screaming bloody murder and you know it.

5
13
pitythefoolsMay. 11, 1311:37 AM

omitfacts: "Pity, or someone could be found guilty of perjury and be held accountable like they should be. People lost their lives, and team Obama covered it up for political reasons."

You must have omitted some facts. There has been no evidence that proves Obama covered up anything. Perjury, huh? Is Ken Starr still around? Let's give him an unlimited budget to investigate this, find something about Obama's personal life completed unrelated to blenblatzlee, impeach him for it and LOSE. AGAIN. Just another mindless Republican witch hunt.

7
5
barb_hMay. 11, 1312:14 PM

If they want to talk about "issue cover ups" ... lets go back a few years, mmm... weapons of mass destruction comes to mind - seems there was a little wordplay from the GOP on this.. Oh and what about the economy going into a free fall, where we were told everything is fine & our economy is strong - seems we were misinformed about this too... need I go on?

11
3
pitythefoolsMay. 11, 1312:15 PM

omitfacts: "If this had happened under a republican president, you would be screaming bloody murder and you know it."

I wonder why no one tried to conjure up a conspiracy out of thin air after the 11 embassy attacks under GWB?

7
3
avejoeconMay. 11, 13 1:31 PM

You must have omitted some facts. There has been no evidence that proves Obama covered up anything.------------Obama directly LIED to the American people when he blamed this on a video the next day.. Read his speech. Paragraph 4, he blames video for something he was told earlier had NOTHING to do with a video. And that lie continued for 3 weeks.

6
11
avejoeconMay. 11, 13 1:32 PM

wonder why no one tried to conjure up a conspiracy out of thin air after the 11 embassy attacks under GWB?----------Because Bsuh never went out and told direct lies about the facts of the attacks. Because Bush's administration never ordered the military to NOT come to the assistance when needed.

6
10
omitfactsMay. 11, 13 2:24 PM

Hey pity, knock it off. What kind of a bubble do you live in? Get educated, because you just sound uninformed and foolish---------------------------------Benghazi attack: State Department pushed for changes in the administration's talking points Article by: DONNA CASSATA and JULIE PACE , Associated Press Updated: May 10, 2013 - 8:09 PM 19 comments resize text printbuy reprints WASHINGTON - Political considerations influenced the talking points that U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice used five days after the deadly Sept. 11 assault in Benghazi, Libya, with State Department and other senior administration officials asking that references to terror groups and prior warnings be deleted, according to department emails.-------------------------------AMERICANS WERE KILLED!!!!!! You may bow to Obama, but this is a very big deal, and either you dont understand, or you choose to keep your head in the sand.

5
10
omitfactsMay. 11, 13 2:33 PM

Benghazi lies exposed Saturday, May 11, 2013 PrintEmail Comments (54) By: Boston Herald editorial staff Surely there has never been a bigger bunch of liars than the crew currently occupying the White House and the now-departed secretary of state. The steady drip, drip, drip of the Benghazi scandal is now a torrent — one that cries out for a special congressional Select Committee to put it all together email by email, revelation by revelation and lie by lie. Yesterday ABC News reported on 12 versions of those now infamous talking points — the ones that we now know began with the real story and ended in the highly sanitized pre-election version dished out to the public on five Sunday morning talk shows by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice. For eight months the lies have continued. On Nov. 28, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said, “Those talking points originated from the intelligence community. They reflect the IC’s best assessments of what they thought had happened. The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two institutions were changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility’ because ‘consulate’ was inaccurate.” That was an outright lie. What was excised from those original talking points drafted by the intelligence community were all references to al-Qaeda and its affiliate in the region Ansar al-Sharia — which Libya’s top officials pinpointed as the source of the attack the very night the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans were killed. The CIA version of the talking points mentioned both al-Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia and a host of earlier warnings about their level of activity in Libya that created a dangerous situation for U.S. personnel. All of those references disappeared after an email to officials at the White House and the intelligence agencies, from State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland who said such information “could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either?” Why indeed. Just because it happens to be the truth — even if the truth reflects badly on her boss, Hillary Clinton. There surely must be a special place in hell reserved for those who cried crocodile tears at the death of our ambassador after doing nothing to help keep him safe and everything to cover up the true nature of the attack.

4
8
omitfactsMay. 11, 13 2:37 PM

Benghazi E-Mails Put White House on the Defensive Win Mcnamee/Getty Images Jay Carney, the press secretary, said Friday at a briefing that the White House changed only a word or two in the talking points on the attack in Libya in September. By MARK LANDLER Published: May 10, 2013 WASHINGTON — A long-simmering dispute over the White House’s account of the deadly assault on the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, flared up on Friday, with a disclosure of e-mails that show the White House was more deeply involved in revising talking points about the attack than officials have previously acknowledged. Related Benghazi Debate Focuses on Interpretation of Early E-Mail on Attackers (May 10, 2013) Diplomat Says Questions Over Benghazi Led to Demotion (May 9, 2013) Related in Opinion The e-mails, which the administration turned over to Congress, show the White House coordinating an intensive process with the State Department, the C.I.A., the F.B.I. and other agencies to obtain the final version of the talking points, used by Susan E. Rice, the ambassador to the United Nations, in television appearances after the attack. The State Department, in particular, pushed to remove references to Al Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia, the Libyan militant group suspected of carrying out the attack as well as warnings about other potential terrorist threats from the C.I.A., which drafted the initial talking points.

3
7

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT