- 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
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 12:40 pm to SlowFlowPro
Agree, as any impartial and honest person knows it came from the WH. However, as far as some blind supporters and the press is concerned, it's a revelation and something they can't hide anymore.
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 12:43 pm to goldennugget
Yep.
And the reason the lies, the cover ups, the spin, the propaganda and misinformation was done, will be forgotten in the left/media.
And the reason the lies, the cover ups, the spin, the propaganda and misinformation was done, will be forgotten in the left/media.
This post was edited on 4/29/14 at 12:44 pm
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 12:55 pm to Pettifogger
quote:
administration share with us the most accurate intelligence on Sunday morning shows
I don't think the expectation is for them to lie about it to cover the presidents failure in actually eliminating al qaeda as had been presented during the DNC conference
Posted on 4/29/14 at 12:57 pm to Pettifogger
quote:
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.
I think you just went full tard.
Or you didn't follow this AT ALL.
They lied directly and specifically to protect the president before an ELECTION, despite obvious facts.
The president was literally asleep so he could go on a Vegas campaign trip the following day and STILL went after the attack.
The former Seals (CIA) were left out to dry. The ambassador was left to die even with EXPLICIT and clear warning this was going to happen.
This post was edited on 4/29/14 at 12:58 pm
Posted on 4/29/14 at 12:59 pm to C
quote:
I don't think the expectation is for them to lie about it to cover the presidents failure in actually eliminating al qaeda as had been presented during the DNC conference
No, but it happened pretty quickly. It quickly became clear that there wasn't gray area to operate in, and the administration had to backtrack. While I find that distasteful, I don't find it outside the bounds of normal political activity. The administration should take a hit on it, which they did, but I don't know what the expectation is beyond that.
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 1:01 pm to Pettifogger
quote:
I don't find it outside the bounds of normal political activity.
oh...this is a troll. Carry on.
Posted on 4/29/14 at 1:02 pm to theunknownknight
I really love it when the less informed tell me what I didn't follow.
You're the type of Republican that makes discourse nearly impossible.
The administration was clearly negligent. The administration mislead us in the days following the attack, and had to backtrack quickly PRIOR TO the election, which we used as campaign fodder (almost successfully).
If you want to claim this is an impeachable offense, fine, assuming you did the same in the aftermath of the Iraq invasion.
You're the type of Republican that makes discourse nearly impossible.
The administration was clearly negligent. The administration mislead us in the days following the attack, and had to backtrack quickly PRIOR TO the election, which we used as campaign fodder (almost successfully).
If you want to claim this is an impeachable offense, fine, assuming you did the same in the aftermath of the Iraq invasion.
Posted on 4/29/14 at 1:03 pm to theunknownknight
remember, RMN was impeached for the cover up, he had nothing to do with the Watergate break in, the cover up is the key.
Posted on 4/29/14 at 1:03 pm to theunknownknight
quote:
oh...this is a troll. Carry on.
It isn't, I'm simply able to digest developments without going Glenn Beck.
Posted on 4/29/14 at 1:03 pm to Pettifogger
quote:
I really love it when the less informed tell me what I didn't follow.
You clearly didn't. Or you're just slow.
quote:
You're the type of Republican that makes discourse nearly impossible.
I'm a democrat.
This post was edited on 4/29/14 at 1:04 pm
Posted on 4/29/14 at 1:04 pm to Alahunter
What difference does it make?
Posted on 4/29/14 at 1:05 pm to dantes69
quote:
remember, RMN was impeached for the cover up, he had nothing to do with the Watergate break in, the cover up is the key.
RMN was impeached for covering up criminal activity in a prolonged conspiracy to do so. Obama's crime is incompetence followed by a brief and unsuccessful cover up, if you can call it that.
As much as I dislike our POTUS, the culpability isn't the same.
Posted on 4/29/14 at 1:05 pm to theunknownknight
quote:
You clearly didn't. Or you're just slow.
By all means, take a moment from your histrionics and justify this little assertion.
Posted on 4/29/14 at 1:05 pm to Pettifogger
quote:
While I find that distasteful
Watergate was distasteful. Benghazi, and the subsequent lies and cover up, is a bit more than just distasteful.
Four Americans died and political ambitions were all that was considered in the aftermath
Posted on 4/29/14 at 1:07 pm to dantes69
quote:
RMN was impeached for the cover up
Nixon was never impeached.
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News