Former Democrat Rep. Dennis Kucinich was Asked Whether Benghazi Talking Points were Politically Scrubbed … His Response, “Of Course They Were, Are You Kidding?”
BOMBSHELL COMMENTS FROM FORMER REP. DENNIS KUCINICH, D-OHIO AND HARD CORE LIBERAL …
Former Democrat US Representative Dennis Kucinich and now Fox News contributor appeared on Fox News Sunday this morning and his comments regarding Benghazi were damning for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. I must say that I had to check outside the window while I was 100% aggressing with Kucinich’s remarks as I thought I saw pigs flying by. When asked by Chris Wallace during the panel discussion, if he thought the Benghazi talking points were politically scrubbed, Kucinich replied, “OF COURSE THEY WERE. COME ON, ARE YOU KIDDING”? Kucinich had previously stated that the Obama administration had to call the Benghazi attack a street demonstration otherwise it brought into play on the eve of an election the fact that the entire Benghazi policy was a failure. Then there was the damning comment of the Obama administration and the Hillary Clinton run State Department … “So we went there to protect the Libyan people. We couldn’t go into Benghazi to protect our own Americans who were serving there?”
WALLACE: Congressman Kucinich, I think it’s fair to say you’re a liberal Democrat. But I want to ask you, does it bother you that the CIA, as we now know, originally wrote about links to Al Qaeda, originally wrote about having warned the State Department for months about threats in Benghazi and that all of that was taken out and let’s put this up on the screen. State Department official Victoria Nuland wrote in pushing back against what the CIA had written, that 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? Concerned.” This, Congressman, from the transparent administration of Barack Obama.
FORMER REP. DENNIS KUCINICH, D-OHIO: Well, I didn’t need those memos to know that it was wrong for us to intervene in Libya. This is one liberal Democrat who said the intervention was wrong. And what the attack on the consulate brings up, Chris, is the failure of the Benghazi policy from the beginning. And that’s why they had to call it a street demonstration instead of an attack because on the eve of an election that brought in a whole new narrative about foreign policy, about dealing with terrorism, and about the consequences that led to four deaths of people who served the United States.
WALLACE: So do you think those talking points were politically scrubbed?
KUCINICH: Of course they were. Come on, are you kidding? You know, this is one of those things that you have to realize, we’re in the circumference of an election, and when you get on the eve of an election, everything becomes political. Unfortunately, Americans died and people who believe in America who put their lives on the line, they weren’t provided with protection. They weren’t provided with a response. They and their families had a right to make sure that they were defended. Look, we went into Benghazi with under the assumption that somehow there was going to be a massacre in Benghazi. So we went there to protect the Libyan people. We couldn’t go into Benghazi to protect our own Americans who were serving there? I’m offended by this, and there has to be real answers to the questions that are being raised.
WALLACE: Kim, let’s assume that Congressman Kucinich is right and that the talking points were politically scrubbed to protect Hillary Clinton, to protect Barack Obama running for re-election, is that where the scandal ends? What evidence is there — there certainly were misjudgments, but what evidence is there that the administration did anything wrong, wrong, either before or during the attack?
KIMBERLEY STRASSEL, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: Well, the thing is we don’t know. And this is what we found out this week, that the official record that is out there on all kinds of things, is simply not correct. OK, so, you know, apparently the White House was not involved in the talking points. That’s not true. Apparently Hillary Clinton was just a footnote in all of this. That was not true. Apparently and supposedly their requests for aid were never denied. We’ve heard this week that that was not true. And so the White House faces an issue here, which is where do we go — where do we get these answers? And that’s why you are now hearing calls for a bipartisan select committee. The Democrats keep claiming that this is partisan, this is a partisan exercise. The only way you’re going to get these answers is if you actually put a committee, put both sides on it, give them the power of deposition, give them the power of subpoena, finally get the emails, finally talk to all the witnesses in public, and if the White House really claims it has nothing to hide, then it shouldn’t fear such an exercise. But that’s the only way that you’re going to start getting any answers on this. Otherwise it’s going to drip, drip, drip on like this week after week.
WHO POLITICIZED BENGHAZI AND THE DEATH OF FOUR AMERICANS?
The Audacity of
Hope Barack Obama. The Obama Administration and their minions are some of the most vile that 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue has ever seen. After ABC News had exposed the Benghazi talking points had been edited 12 times to the point where they did not even reflect the truth as to what happened … during their damage control, the Obama spin machine and chief Obama mouthpiece Jay Carney tried to blame it all on Mitt Romney. How pathetic are these people? Who politicized Benghazi and the death of Ambassador Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty and Tyrone S. Woods? It was the Obama administration who as even MSNBC and CNN are reporting edited the talking points for political purposes during a reelection campaign. MSNBC is even going as far as discussing impeachment as a result of the Obama administrations actions. This administration lied and scrubbed the Benghazi talking points to get reelected and they have the gall to say others politicized Benghazi? Families, friend and Americans want answers to what happened and the Obama administration continues to misrepresent the truth.
But with President Obama, the buck always stops with some one else.
Bad Day for Obama & Hillary Clinton: MSNBC Guest from the Daily Beast Columnist Michael Tomasky Says … Invoked “That Word That Starts With ‘I’” … Benghazi Scandal Makes White House “Look Terrible,” Possibly An “Impeachment Issue”
You know its bad for Barack Obama when the LIBS at
MSNBS MSLSD MSNBC start bringing up “Impeachment” as a result of their Benghazi cover-up and Benghazigate.
Even the LEFT is at a loss for words and defense when it comes to the way the Obama White House has handled Benghazi before, during and after the Benghazi consulate attacks. The news that Benghazi talking points had been edited 12 times and scrubbed of all references of terrorism have left the LEFT in a quandary. Just when you thought you had seen it all, even the ultra-liberal MSNBC folks appear to be using the “I” word when it comes to President Barack Obama and “impeachment” over the White House’s handling of the aftermath of the Benghazi terror attacks that left four Americans dead, including US Ambassador Chris Stevens. Playing politics games to win the 2012 presidential election, could come back to bite Obama. MSNBC, that has made a living off of defending, deflecting and just not covering Barack Obama’s disastrous presidency, both foreign and domestic, has now been forced to question the Obama presidency and even use such descriptive words as impeachment and compare his handling of Benghazi to ‘Watergate”. As Maggie’s Farm states, this is beginning to look much worse than “Watergate”. In fact, it is. No US ambassadors died during Watergate. Actually, no one died during Watergate, only political careers.
Unlike Watergate, an unremarkable political dirty trick with a dumb and unnecessary White House cover-up (if a handful of people had been fired it would have been a big nothing), in this case American public servants died seemingly because of State Dept and possibly White House incompetence or indifference, and both may have been complicit in an attempted cover-up a few weeks before a national election. Possibly the CIA too. People have been intimidated about speaking out, but maybe no longer.
It is not joust Barack Obama who is in trouble, but so is former Secretary of State and 2016 Democrat presidential nominee wannbe Hillary Clinton. She comes across looking terrible, possibly even worse than Obama. As Washington Post reporter Nia-Malika Henderson said, “I think, for Clinton, it looks Clintonian.” Yes she does. Hillary looks like all the worst parts of the Bill Clinton years, something that will not be lost by the GOP or Democrat primary challengers in 2016. The politicization of talking points when four Americans died is beyond disgustingly sick. Before, during and after, Clinton’s State Department failed miserably and looked to cover up … is that what the US needs as a president in 2016?
“This is quite the window into what is usually the hush-hush process about how to deal with these types of attacks and the spin that irrevocably comes afterwards,” NBC reporter Luke Russert opined.
“This is not good for the White House right now,” Russert said to BuzzFeed editor Ben Smith. “Does it stick?”
“Well, sure,” Smith replied. “They look terrible.”
Smith said that the emails indicate that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton may have been directly involved in the process of “scrubbing” references to Islamic terrorism from her department’s talking points.
“Does this become then an election politics thing?” Russert asked. He said that the Republican Party has been trying to link Clinton to the Benghazi scandal for some time.
The Daily Beast columnist Michael Tomasky said it does. He invoked “that word that starts with ‘I’” to describe the potentially significant political fallout that could result from the Benghazi scandal.
“It becomes a potentially impeachment issue as long as the Republicans are in control of the House,” Tomasky added.
“I think, for Clinton, it looks Clintonian,” submitted Washington Post reporter Nia-Malika Henderson. “It also, I think, reminds us that there is only one person that the far right-wing hates more than Obama, and that’s Hillary Clinton.”
Sen. Rand Paul (KY-R) To Hillary Clinton at Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearing on Benghazi Terrorist Attack: ‘I Would Have Relieved You Of Your Post’ (VIDEO)
Yesterday during the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Benghazi, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) criticized Secretary of State Hillary Clinton over the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. Paul was one of the few that held nothing back and held Hilary Clinton’s feet to the fire for the responsibility, culpability and accountability for the Benghazi terror attacks. During his statements to Clinton Rand Paul stated, “Had I been president and found you did not read the cables from Benghazi and from Ambassador Stevens, I would have relieved you of your post.”
From the HUFPO:
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) criticized Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Wednesday during the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing over the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.
“I’m glad that you’re accepting responsibility,” said Paul. “I think ultimately with your leaving that you accept the culpability for the worst tragedy since 9/11. And I really mean that.”
“Had I been president and found you did not read the cables from Benghazi and from Ambassador Stevens, I would have relieved you of your post. I think it’s inexcusable,” he said, referencing Clinton’s comments that she had not read all of the documentation surrounding the attack.
“I think we can understand you’re not reading every cable,” Paul said. He added that he didn’t suspect Clinton of “bad motives” but said that it was a “failure of leadership.”
RFK Jr. Believes Lee Harvey Oswald Did Not Act Alone … Evidence ‘Very Convincing’ Lone Gunman Did Not Kill JFK
The conspiracy theories behind the assassination of JFK just got more credence 50 years later …
The assassination of John F. Kennedy and the subsequent Warren Commission report has been debated, criticized, questioned and ridiculed for 50 years. So many people have theorized about the grassy knoll and that there was more than one gunman who killed JFK. Now Robert F. Kennedy Jr, says that he is convinced that a lone gunman wasn’t solely responsible for the assassination of his uncle, President JFK, and said his father, Robert F. Kennedy, believed the Warren Commission report was a “shoddy piece of craftsmanship.” RFK Jr. stated, “the evidence at this point I think is very, very convincing that it was not a lone gunman.”
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is convinced that a lone gunman wasn’t solely responsible for the assassination of his uncle, President John F. Kennedy, and said his father believed the Warren Commission report was a “shoddy piece of craftsmanship.”
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said his father spent a year trying to come to grips with his brother’s death, reading the work of Greek philosophers, Catholic scholars, Henry David Thoreau, poets and others “trying to figure out kind of the existential implications of why a just God would allow injustice to happen of the magnitude he was seeing.”
He said his father thought the Warren Commission, which concluded Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in killing the president, was a “shoddy piece of craftsmanship.” He said that he, too, questioned the report.
“The evidence at this point I think is very, very convincing that it was not a lone gunman,” he said, but he didn’t say what he believed may have happened.
Let the conspiracies begin … what do you believe?
It all depends on what is, is … Welcome to Obama’s ‘Watergate’, only this time Americans died.
The Obama White House has denied editing the talking points regarding the terror attack in Benghazi, Libya that killed four Americans including Ambassador Stevens. However, this contradicts former CIA director David Petraeus’ remarks that he had made behind closed doors to a Congressional committee. Petraeus told lawmakers that from the onset of the investigation about the September 11 attack, US intelligence pointed to al Qaeda affiliates. So who made the edits, who insisted the edits be made and who signed off on them? The edits would have been made after the statements had left the CIA for review by the Defense and State departments, ultimately landing at the White House. Sorry, but there has to be a simple paper trial of how this document changed and who changed and approved the changes. Barack Obama promised transparency and it is about time he is held accountable for such.
Obama continues to laugh at “We the People” as he played politics with the death of four brave souls as America was too busy taxing the rich
The White House yesterday denied it edited talking points about the terrorist attack that killed the American ambassador to Libya — contradicting remarks made a day earlier by disgraced ex-CIA chief David Petraeus.
“The only edit that was made by the White House and also by the State Department was to change the word ‘consulate’ to the word ‘diplomatic facility,’ since the facility in Benghazi was not formally a consulate,” Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes told reporters aboard Air Force One.
“Other than that, we were guided by the points that were provided by the intelligence community. So I can’t speak to any other edits that may have been made.”
One would think that a President, a Commander in Chief would be furious and demand answers to who edited talking points that put out a false narrative when four Americans died. However, not when it was made political and had to be covered up until after an election. In Obama’s world, the ends justify the means.
Who are you going to believe America? Think Obama’s WH did not edit the talking points or have a hand in taking the “terror” out? This from the same Obama Administration that changed the “WAR ON TERROR” to read as an “OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATION”.
Posted November 19, 2012 by Scared Monkeys
al-Qaeda, Assassination, Barack Obama, Benghazi-Gate, CIA, collusion, Conspiracy, Corruption, cronyism, David Petraeus, Ethics, Libya, Lost in Smallness, Misrepresentation, Obamanation, Radical Islam, Scandal, The Dodger in Chief, The Lying King, Transparency, War on Terror, WTF | 6 comments
How Naive Does Obama’s 2007 Words Look Now in Retrospect? … The Day I’m Inaugurated Muslim Hostility Will Ease … “the World Will Look at America Differently”
Maybe Samuel L. Jackson was partially correct ... AMERICA, ITS TIME TO WAKE THE F@CK UP. The voting for Obama part, not so much. Ask yourself America, do you think the hostilities have eased since Obama became President? How that Radical Muslin “Hopey-Changey” stuff working u for you?
On New Hampshire Public Radio on November 27, 2007 , Barack Hussein Obama stated that he was uniquely qualified to bring stability to America’s relationships in the Muslim world because he lived in an Islamic country during his youth and his half-sister is Muslim. Wow, Obama actually believed that the relationship between the Middle East and America was going to change because he was Barack “Hussein” Obama. Really? Sadly, an asleep at the wheel America bought this BS and elected him in 2008. Even more pathetic is Obama may actually believe his own BS.
click on pic for audio of Obama’s comments
Hat Tip: Breitbart.com
So what do you think now America? The Arab Street hates America just as much as they ever have and the Middle East is on fire. Once again Obama has failed, this time on foreign policy. It pretty much shows just how naive and Pollyannaish Barack Obama really is and was. Obama stated that on the day he is inaugurated Muslim hostility will ease. Once again we might ask, America, is the Muslin hostility better off today than it was four years ago? Picture from the AP of Protesters torch an effigy of Barack Obama in Afghanistan.
Yup, things look so much better under Barack Obama and his inner knowledge of being a Muslim.
Ambassador Stevens be dragged thru the streets after his death (Al Ahram)
Obama’s arrogance is amazing, the world will look at America differently because of him. UNREAL.
Bin Laden Ordered Obama Assassination to Put “Completely Unprepared” Joe Biden Into Office of Presidency
This is rather interesting … Osama bin Laden ordered assassination of President Barack Obama to cause chaos and have a “completely unprepared” Joe Biden assume the Presidency. Hmm … imagine that logic, having a “totally unprepared and inept” President taken out in liu of a “completely unprepared” one. It would appear that Bin Laden spent one too many days in seclusion.
Who is the “completely unprepared” one?
Before his death, Osama bin Laden boldly commanded his network to organize special cells in Afghanistan and Pakistan to attack the aircraft of President Obama and Gen. David H. Petraeus.
“The reason for concentrating on them,” the al-Qaeda leader explained to his top lieutenant, “is that Obama is the head of infidelity and killing him automatically will make [Vice President] Biden take over the presidency. .?.?. Biden is totally unprepared for that post, which will lead the U.S. into a crisis. As for Petraeus, he is the man of the hour .?.?. and killing him would alter the war’s path” in Afghanistan.
Administration officials said Friday that the Obama-Petraeus plot was never a serious threat.
The scheme is described in one of the documents taken from bin Laden’s compound by U.S. forces on May 2, the night he was killed. I was given an exclusive look at some of these remarkable documents by a senior administration official. They have been declassified and will be available soon to the public in their original Arabic texts and translations.
Wasn’t it Biden who said, “Mark my words. Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking … to stand with him. Because it’s not gonna be apparent initially, it’s not gonna be apparent that we’re right.”
Bin Laden must have missed former President Clinton’s comment that Obama Isn’t Ready, Too Inexperienced. I am guessing that Bin Laden had never seen the above VIDEO questioning Barack Obama’s lack of preparedness as stated by Joe Biden stating that being President does not lend itself to on the job training.
Louis Farrakhan Deals Up the Race Card, Again … Warns of Racial Hatred that could Lead to attempts to kill President Obama
The Race Card and Hate from Louis Farrakhan …
Who is really tired of the race card? This is all the LEFT and the race baiters like Minister Louis Farrakhan have left when it comes to Obama. After all, it is not like Barack Obama can run on his record. Instead those that have been causing dissent between the races for years like Louis Farrakhan now warn that racial hatred could lead to an assassination attempt.
In a fiery lecture to thousands of followers of the Nation of Islam on Sunday in Chicago, Minister Louis Farrakhan warned that racial hatred could lead to attempts to assassinate President Barack Obama.
Farrakhan spent much of his oration decrying what he cast as Satan’s influence over racist forces in politics and society before asking a pointed rhetorical question: “Do you think they’re wicked enough to be plotting our brother’s assassination as we speak?”
Then again, its not like Obama does not use the race card at the drop of a hat. So now we have African Americans for Obama. Really Mr. President? Imagine if we had Whites for Romney or Santorum … oh that would go over well with the MSM. So this is the “hope & change” that America was promised. Interestingly enough most people like Obama as a person, its his radical Left and socialist policies that they can’t stand. When it comes to hate, Farrakhan need to look no further than the mirror.
Farrakhan drew a distinction between noble Jews and followers of “the synagogue of Satan,” and he pointed to a recent incident in which the publisher of a Jewish magazine suggested Israeli security forces could help preserve Israel by killing Obama. He attacked Israeli policies, while also directing criticism at perceived Jewish influence in the U.S.
“Jewish people were not the origin of Hollywood, but they took it over,” he said, blaming the entertainment industry for degrading the country’s morality.
Hmm, isn’t it Hollywood where Obama has his high priced fund raisers?
Assassinations, affairs and conspiracies, Oh My …
Remember the good old days of Camelot and the Kennedy’s? Well the UK Daily Mail has a bombshell of an article from Jackie O tapes that she believed that LBJ was involved in a conspiracy to assassinate JFK. Maybe we can expect another Oliver Stone movie, JFK II, the conspiracy behind the conspiracy.
Jackie Onassis believed that Lyndon B Johnson and a cabal of Texas tycoons were involved in the assassination of her husband John F Kennedy, ‘explosive’ recordings are set to reveal.
The secret tapes will show that the former first lady felt that her husband’s successor was at the heart of the plot to murder him.
She became convinced that the then vice president, along with businessmen in the South, had orchestrated the Dallas shooting, with gunman Lee Harvey Oswald – long claimed to have been a lone assassin – merely part of a much larger conspiracy.
According to accounts, the tapes were recorded in 1963 with leading historian Arthur Schlesinger. Jackie O had asked that the tapes not be released until 50 years after her death. It’s hard to believe its been 17 years since Jackie passed from cancer. There is nothing like a Kennedy conspiracy to capture the news and the attention of so many after so many years.
The tapes were recorded with leading historian Arthur Schlesinger Jnr within months of the assassination on November 22, 1963, and had been sealed in a vault at the Kennedy Library in Boston.
The then Mrs Kennedy, who went on to marry Greek shipping tycoon Aristotle Onassis, had ordered that they should not be released until 50 years after her death, with some reports suggesting she feared that her revelations might make her family targets for revenge.