- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Benghazi - Emails - White House aide involved in prepping Rice
Posted on 4/29/14 at 12:37 pm
Posted on 4/29/14 at 12:37 pm
Newly released emails on the Benghazi terror attack suggest a senior White House aide played a central role in preparing former U.N. ambassador Susan Rice for her controversial Sunday show appearances -- where she wrongly blamed protests over an Internet video.
More than 100 pages of documents were released to the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. Among them was a Sept. 14, 2012, email from Ben Rhodes, an assistant to the president and deputy national security adviser for strategic communications.
The Rhodes email, with the subject line: "RE: PREP Call with Susan: Saturday at 4:00 pm ET," was sent to a dozen members of the administration's inner circle, including key members of the White House communications team such as Press Secretary Jay Carney.
In the email, Rhodes specifically draws attention to the anti-Islam Internet video, without distinguishing whether the Benghazi attack was different from protests elsewhere.
The email lists the following two goals, among others:
"To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy."
"To reinforce the President and Administration's strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges."
The email goes on to state that the U.S. government rejected the message of the Internet video. "We find it disgusting and reprehensible. But there is absolutely no justification at all for responding to this movie with violence," the email stated.
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said the documents read like a PR strategy, not an effort to provide the best available intelligence to the American people.
LINK
More than 100 pages of documents were released to the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. Among them was a Sept. 14, 2012, email from Ben Rhodes, an assistant to the president and deputy national security adviser for strategic communications.
The Rhodes email, with the subject line: "RE: PREP Call with Susan: Saturday at 4:00 pm ET," was sent to a dozen members of the administration's inner circle, including key members of the White House communications team such as Press Secretary Jay Carney.
In the email, Rhodes specifically draws attention to the anti-Islam Internet video, without distinguishing whether the Benghazi attack was different from protests elsewhere.
The email lists the following two goals, among others:
"To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy."
"To reinforce the President and Administration's strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges."
The email goes on to state that the U.S. government rejected the message of the Internet video. "We find it disgusting and reprehensible. But there is absolutely no justification at all for responding to this movie with violence," the email stated.
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said the documents read like a PR strategy, not an effort to provide the best available intelligence to the American people.
LINK
This post was edited on 4/29/14 at 12:39 pm
11
Posted on 4/29/14 at 12:38 pm to Alahunter
this isn't really news. more like a "no fricking shite" response. that's the whole point of your aides/admin
Posted on 4/29/14 at 12:42 pm to Alahunter
The problem is the left/media continue to shift the narrative. They try to make it look like the GOP/Conservatives are outraged because there was an attack. "Dozens of embassies were attacked under Bush!"
That's not what we are angry about. Attacks happen
We are mad about the response to it. The lies, the cover ups, the spin, the propaganda, the misinformation.
That's not what we are angry about. Attacks happen
We are mad about the response to it. The lies, the cover ups, the spin, the propaganda, the misinformation.
Posted on 4/29/14 at 12:52 pm to Alahunter
I'm just not sure what I'm supposed to take away from this.
Is this a cover up or political spin? Is our expectation really that the administration share with us the most accurate intelligence on Sunday morning shows?
I think the administration botched Benghazi and the aftermath. However, I'm not of the opinion it was a massive conspiracy of sorts.
Is this a cover up or political spin? Is our expectation really that the administration share with us the most accurate intelligence on Sunday morning shows?
I think the administration botched Benghazi and the aftermath. However, I'm not of the opinion it was a massive conspiracy of sorts.
Posted on 4/29/14 at 1:00 pm to Alahunter
quote:
Ben Rhodes
You mean head of CBS News Ben Rhodes?
You mean the guy that forced Sheryl Attkisson out?
Posted on 4/29/14 at 1:04 pm to Alahunter
What difference does it make?
Posted on 4/29/14 at 2:40 pm to Alahunter
quote:For anybody who is awake this one gets filed under 'D' for 'Duh'.
Benghazi - Emails - White House aide involved in prepping Rice
However, I am glad to see some reporters finally getting to the truth of the story.
Posted on 4/29/14 at 3:18 pm to Alahunter
Benghazi is old news, there is a rich white racist on the loose
Posted on 4/29/14 at 4:02 pm to Alahunter
I wonder if ABC, CBS and NNC will mention this on their national news broadcasts tonight?
Posted on 4/29/14 at 4:28 pm to Alahunter
quote:
In the email, Rhodes specifically draws attention to the anti-Islam Internet video, without distinguishing whether the Benghazi attack was different from protests elsewhere.
The CIA analysts considered public statements by Ansar al-Sharia that the assault was a "spontaneous popular uprising" related "attack on the Holy Prophet" in formulating their initial assessment, which shows there was indeed a basis at the time for concluding that the video was a factor.
quote:
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said the documents read like a PR strategy,
Someone should remind him what a communications staff is paid to do.
Posted on 4/30/14 at 12:29 am to Alahunter
What bothers me about this is how gleefully the administration ran to cover with this story of the video as if it somehow justified the actions. They excoriated the producer of the film and gladly took him on as a scapegoat, giving only and just barely lip service to U S First Amendment rights to Free Speech.
Administration officials were vehemently stating that the attacks were not aimed at the U. S. per se, but rather at the video, saying this as the protestors/terrorists were burning USA flags (and embassies). How is an abridgment of our rights to free speech not an attack on our country.
I mean seriously "what difference does it make" why terrorists are attacking our embassy and killing our ambassador. It's as if the administration is saying the video somehow mitigated the terrorist actions. (Please do not read this as an endorsement of Hillary Clinton's use of this phrase).
I know the common perception is that the misinformation was to belie the notion that President Obama was "losing control" of Al Quaeda, but I think they were trying to deflect attention from the fact that the Ambassador had been warning for months about attacks that had been taking place in the area and his requests for security. I think the administration is only too happy to have everyone continue to say that the coverup was about the election and foreign policy. Other countries and The Red Cross had closed their embassies and left because of the violence and lack of security.
I think the administration is hiding gross negligence in their lack of protection and the ultimate killing of our Ambassador.
Administration officials were vehemently stating that the attacks were not aimed at the U. S. per se, but rather at the video, saying this as the protestors/terrorists were burning USA flags (and embassies). How is an abridgment of our rights to free speech not an attack on our country.
I mean seriously "what difference does it make" why terrorists are attacking our embassy and killing our ambassador. It's as if the administration is saying the video somehow mitigated the terrorist actions. (Please do not read this as an endorsement of Hillary Clinton's use of this phrase).
I know the common perception is that the misinformation was to belie the notion that President Obama was "losing control" of Al Quaeda, but I think they were trying to deflect attention from the fact that the Ambassador had been warning for months about attacks that had been taking place in the area and his requests for security. I think the administration is only too happy to have everyone continue to say that the coverup was about the election and foreign policy. Other countries and The Red Cross had closed their embassies and left because of the violence and lack of security.
I think the administration is hiding gross negligence in their lack of protection and the ultimate killing of our Ambassador.
This post was edited on 4/30/14 at 12:32 am
Posted on 4/30/14 at 8:57 am to Alahunter
I'm shocked.
Deny until it's proven, and by then the news outlets won't care.
Deny until it's proven, and by then the news outlets won't care.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News