Bob Woodward Says on ‘Fox News Sunday’ … “There’s No Strategy” For ISIS and Obama White House Is “Micromanaging” Military
FRIGHTENING, JUST FRIGHTENING …
Yesterday on FOX News Sunday, WAPO’s Bob Woodward responded to Chris Wallace’s question regarding how Barack Obama is handling the war against ISIS and what to make of Obama’s comparisons to the crusades. Woodward eviscerated the Obama White House for having no plan for dealing with ISIS.
Bob Woodward said the military is upset because Susan Rice is telling the generals how to fight.
“If you talk to people in the White House and the military, I think there’s agreement and John McCain is right and General Flynn is right, there is no strategy. They have not sat down and said this is where we want to go and this is how we want to do it. And the measure of that, when you head into the weeds here, people from the White House are micromanaging the tactical situation on a daily and weekly basis. That’s not their job. They have to kind of do strategic planning and say what do we want to accomplish in the next year […] “And they have got all these people in the White House. You talk to people in the military who are there and they say ‘we are being micromanaged and we’re not given a real plan to say what are we going to do here.’ And it’s not the way to run a war or try to win a war.”
But what would you expect from an administration that thinks this myth of ‘GLOBAL WARMING’ is a greater threat to the United States than radical Islam.
Sen. John McCain Questions Swap “Highest High-Risk” Terrorists as White House National Security Adviser Susan Rice Defends United States Negotiating with Terrorists over Exchange of GITMO 5 for U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl
A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT THAT THE US WILL RUE THE DAY …
White House national security adviser Susan Rice went on CNN’s ‘State of the Union’ with Candy Crowley to defend the Obama administration’s decision to exchange five GITMO “high risk” Taliban detainees for U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl. Rice also spun the fact that the Obama administration broke the law in not notifying Congress 30 days prior that there was a negotiation in process. But of course, what difference does it make with this administration, all they do is break the law, thumb their nose at separations of power and The US Constitution. Let alone negotiating with terrorists. How and why would something like this be deemed so sensitive that Congress was not notified? ” Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) said on ABC’s ‘This Week,’ “What does this tell the terrorists? That if you capture a U.S. soldier, you can trade that soldier for five terrorists Cruz called the prisoner swap “very disturbing.”
White House national security adviser Susan Rice defended the Obama administration’s decision to exchange Guantanamo detainees for U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, amid criticism that the United States negotiated with terrorists in the process.
She also said the “acute urgency” of Bergdahl’s health condition justified President Obama’s not notifying Congress beforehand that Bergdahl was being swapped for five Taliban detainees at Guantanamo Bay.
“What we did was ensure that, as always, the United States doesn’t leave a man or a woman on the battlefield,” Rice said Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union.”
Susan Rice went on to parrot President Obama in saying, “What we did was ensure that, as always, the United States doesn’t leave a man or a woman on the battlefield.” However, there appears to be just one little problem with that statement … Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl was not left on the battlefield, by all accounts he left his
From The Daily Caller: CNN’s Candy Crowley Grills Susan Rice: ‘Point Blank, Did The US Negotiate With Terrorists?’
Once again the Obama administration is playing games with words. Newsflash to Susan Rice by the associative property, if a=b and b=c then a=c, you negotiated with terrorists.
CNN host Candy Crowley pressed White House national security adviser Susan Rice on the Taliban prisoner swap conducted Saturday, asking “point blank, did the US negotiate with terrorists” in violation of its long-held policy?
Crowley spoke with Rice on Sunday about the exchange of five high-ranking Taliban detainees — two of which are accused of the mass murder of religious minorities in Afghanistan — for Army Sgt. Bowe Berghdahl, whom many claim was captured after deserting his post and walking into the Afghan wilderness in 2009.
Berghdahl was captured by the Haqqani network, a close ally of the Taliban and an acknowledged terrorist organization according to the State Department.
“Point blank, did the US negotiate with terrorists for his release?” Crowley asked.
“Candy, what we did was ensure that, as always, the United States doesn’t leave a man or woman on the battlefield,” Rice replied. “It’s very important for folks to understand, if we got into a situation where we said because of who has captured an American soldier on the battlefield, we will leave that person behind.”
John McCain went on CBS’s ‘Face the Nation’ and questioned the swap of “highest high-risk people” for U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl. McCain called the GITMO detainees, “These are the hardest of the hard core” and added that he was disturbed the Taliban named the prisoners they wanted in exchange for Bergdahl’s freedom.
Current and former U.S. officials welcomed the return of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, the only American soldier held prisoner in Afghanistan, but voiced concern about the release of five members of the Taliban who had been held at the Guantanamo Bay as part of a negotiated prisoner swap.
“These are the hardest of the hard core. These are the highest high-risk people, and others that we have released have gone back into the fight,” said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., in an interview on “Face the Nation,” adding that he was disturbed the Taliban named the prisoners they wanted in exchange for Bergdahl’s freedom.
ABC’s Jon Karl Hammers WH Spokesman Jay Carney On Revisionist Benghazi Talking Points, Susan Rice Interviews & Smoking Gun Email Linked to Obama White House
Baghdad Bob Jay Carney grilled by ABC’s Jon Karl over new explosive emails linking the Obama White House over Benghazi untruthful talking points. Watch Jay twist, turn and spin … What does the Obama administration do when caught in a lie … Lie some more.
In the wake of Judicial Watch gaining a “smoking” email via FOIA lawsuit, the Obama administration is trying to explain away the obvious … they put politics over the death of four Americans, including a US Ambassador, in an attempt to distract from the truth during an election. ABC’s Jon Karl was relentless with WH spin-man Carney and just grilling him on the faux Benghazi talking points. Karl asked Carney why the Rhodes email is only now being made public? Carney actually said that the document (email) was not about Benghazi. Will the MSM finally do their job and go after the Obama administration?
Yup, not a smidgin of coverup in Benghazi whatsoever. What is being overlooked though, as Carney and Karl argue over whether the talking point email had to specifically do with Benghazi, which it did, Hugh Hewitt makes an important point in that every one of the Rhodes email goals, Not “The Truth” Every One Of Four Goals Urges A Lie.
More from Powerline on the absolutely ridiculous answer given by Jay Carney to the White House reporters regarding the email and that it was not about Benghazi.
Carney’s answer is ridiculous. Of course the email bears more broadly on conditions across the Middle East, but it relates most specifically to Benghazi. Why was Susan Rice appearing on every Sunday morning talk show? Because four Americans were killed in Benghazi. Why was the administration’s top political team gathering to prepare her for those appearances? Because four Americans were killed in Benghazi. Why does the email begin with the stated goal of conveying that the Obama administration is doing everything it can to protect its people abroad? Because four Americans were killed in Benghazi. Why is the group talking about “bringing people who harm Americans to justice”? The only place where Americans were harmed was Benghazi. Obviously, the email relates to Benghazi. And equally obviously, its reference to “underscor[ing] that these protests are rooted in an internet video, and not a broader failure of policy” was intended to deflect blame for the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi.
The Smoking Email: Benghazi Email Documents Point to White House on Misleading Talking Points … White House Deputy Strategic Communications Adviser Ben Rhodes
THE SMOKING BENGHAZI-GATE EMAIL … THEY ARE WHO WE THOUGHT THEY WERE … OBAMA PLAYING POLITICS WITH AMERICANS DYING.
Yup, not a smidgen of deceit, corruption and cover up …
As reported at the Washington Free Beacon, previously unreleased internal Obama administration emails show that there was a coordinated effort made in the days following the Benghazi consulate terror attacks that left four Americans dead, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, to portray the incident as “rooted in [an] Internet video, and not [in] a broader failure or policy.” The documents were gained by Judicial Watch, as result of a June 21, 2013, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed against the Department of State. The documents show explicitly that emails sent by senior White House adviser Ben Rhodes to other top administration officials reveal an effort to insulate President Barack Obama from the attacks that killed four Americans. WH adviser Rhodes also sent this email to top White House officials like David Plouffe and Jay Carney just a day before National Security Adviser Susan Rice made her infamous Sunday news show appearances to discuss the attack. Rice would then go on all five Sunday talk shows and lie to America and blame a video regarding what happened in Benghazi to protect Obama politically.
AMERICANS DIED AND OBAMA LIED … How much more proof do you need America to show that the Obama administration purposely and willfully orchestrated the Benghazi attack lies in order to distract the American public from Obama’s foreign policy failures ahead of an election? Usually the cover up is worse than the crime, but in this case four Americans died.
Judicial Watch announced today that on April 18, 2014, it obtained 41 new Benghazi-related State Department documents. They include a newly declassified email showing then-White House Deputy Strategic Communications Adviser Ben Rhodes and other Obama administration public relations officials attempting to orchestrate a campaign to “reinforce” President Obama and to portray the Benghazi consulate terrorist attack as being “rooted in an Internet video, and not a failure of policy.” Other documents show that State Department officials initially described the incident as an “attack” and a possible kidnap attempt.
The Rhodes email was sent on sent on Friday, September 14, 2012, at 8:09 p.m. with the subject line: “RE: PREP CALL with Susan, Saturday at 4:00 pm ET.” The documents show that the “prep” was for Amb. Rice’s Sunday news show appearances to discuss the Benghazi attack.
The document lists as a “Goal”: “To underscore that these protests are rooted in and Internet video, and not a broader failure or policy.”
Rhodes returns to the “Internet video” scenario later in the email, the first point in a section labeled “Top-lines”:
[W]e’ve made our views on this video crystal clear. The United States government had nothing to do with it. We reject its message and its contents. We find it disgusting and reprehensible. But there is absolutely no justification at all for responding to this movie with violence. And we are working to make sure that people around the globe hear that message.
More from The National Review Online:
He wrote that the president and administration “find [the video] disgusting and reprehensible,” but said that “there is absolutely no justification at all for responding to this move with violence.”
Additionally, Rhodes recommended Rice herald President Obama ahead of the upcoming elections.
“I think that people have come to trust that President Obama provides leadership that is steady and statesmanlike,” Rhodes wrote. “There are always going to be challenges that emerge around the world, and time and again, he has shown that we can meet them.”
“Benghazi Emails Show White House Effort to Protect Obama — Staff attempted to insulate president’s policies from criticism ahead of election.” It’s everything that we knew!It’s everything we suspected about Benghazi. And remember, we still don’t know where Obama was for five to seven hours. The president of the United States was off the grid. At five o’clock, in the middle of the attack, the last he says to Hillary and Panetta or whoever it was (paraphrasing), “You guys handle it, take care of it,” and he’s gone. So goes the story.
And now we’ve got these e-mails saying that the White House staff redid the talking points. They massaged everything in order to protect Obama, plausible deniability, to make it appear, running of the election, Obama had no clue what was going on. It was not his policy, this or that. He was not involved. Whatever it took, the White House did. That’s the latest from this release from Benghazi. And, yeah, it’s too late for 2012, but it’s not too late for November this year, folks.
FLASHBACK TO FEB 24, 2014 Interview on Meet the Press … Susan Rice Says She Has No Regrets Over Initial Benghazi Interviews, ‘Patently False’ That I Misled American People.
They Have No Shame … Susan Rice Says She Has No Regrets Over Initial Benghazi Interviews, ‘Patently False’ That I Misled American People (VIDEO)
Doubling Down … Softball interview with NBC’s ‘Meet the Press’ … National Security Adviser Susan Rice says she has no regrets on Benghazi interview following the death of four Americans.
Oh what tangled webs we weave when we practice to deceive. The Obama administration is simply incapable of telling the truth. National Security Adviser Susan Rice, when asked this Sunday on ‘Meet the Press,’ said that she had no regrets with what she said on five Sunday network talk shows in misleading the America public is saying the Benghazi attack was based on a video tape rather than a terror attack. Rice claims that it is “settled science” that the Obama administration had done nothing wrong. Rice stated some of the information turned out not to be correct, “but the notion that somehow I or anybody else in the administration misled the American people is patently false. And I think that that’s been amply demonstrated.” HA, this from the Obama administration that said, if you liked your insurance plan, you can keep your insurance plan, PERIOD! I am sensing a pattern.
No regrets, really? The reason why she is not Secretary of State Rice and is only the National Security Adviser is because of those lies. Of course an all too in the tank bias media was no where to be found as David Gregory asked no follow up questions to contradict her “Alinky” comments.
Yeah, not a smidgen of corruption whatsoever.
National Security Adviser Susan Rice said Sunday she has no regrets about her now-infamous round of TV interviews in 2012 about the the attacks on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya.
Rice, appearing on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” said that nobody in the Obama administration intended to mislead the American people when she appeared on Fox, ABC, CNN, NBC and CBS in 2012 shortly after the attacks.
Asked by host David Gregory if she had any regrets about the interviews, Rice replied: “No.”
“Because what I said to you that morning, and what I did every day since, was to share the best information that we had at the time,” Rice said. “The information I provided, which I explained to you, was what we had at the moment. It could change. I commented that this was based on what we knew on that morning, was provided to me and my colleagues and, indeed, to Congress, by the intelligence community. And that’s been well validated in many different ways since.”
“That information turned out, in some respects, not to be 100 percent correct,” she acknowledged. “But the notion that somehow I or anybody else in the administration misled the American people is patently false. And I think that that’s been amply demonstrated.”
Barack Obama – Bill O’Reilly Contentious Pre-Super Bowl Interview Discusses Obamacare Failed Promises, Benghazi, IRS-Gate … “Not Even a Smidgen of Corruption” … “These Kinds of Things Keep on Surfacing, Because Folks Like You Will Promote Them.”
THE THIN SKINNED PRESIDENTIAL INTERVIEW …
President Barack Obama and FOX News’ Bill O’Reilly went back and forth in a contentious pre-Super Bowl interview in which the president provided few answers. Instead of answering the tough question that not only Americans want to hear, but are entitled to, Obama played the blame game, ducked and dodged, and allowed his thin skin to dictate the non-responsive interview. Obama’s attempt to try and put all his administrations scandals behind him, most likely only made matters worse. When being asked questions, Obama actually blamed FOX News for daring to bring up and question such scandals like Benghazi, IRS-gate, Obamacare and the rest of the all too numerous scandals of the Obama presidency. Obama actually thinks the media is supposed to be his propaganda arm. In the end Obama stated that there was no corruption, “not even a smidgen.”
Obama addressed concerns over Benghazi, the launch of HealthCare.gov and the IRS, during the interview Sunday before the Super Bowl. He adamantly rejected the suggestion that the IRS was used for political purposes by singling out Tea Party groups seeking tax exemption.
“That’s not what happened,” he said. Rather, he said, IRS officials were confused about how to implement the law governing those kinds of tax-exempt groups.
“There were some bone-headed decisions,” Obama conceded.
But when asked whether corruption, or mass corruption, was at play, he responded: “Not even mass corruption — not even a smidgen of corruption.”
Bill O’Reilly’s Super Bowl interview with President Obama
Picture: Source Fox News screen grab – Click in Pic to watch VIDEO
I have just one question, why did President Barack Obama agree to do this interview if he did not intend to answer any question or offer anything new other than the same old BS and blame game? It would appear that the folks at Hot Air are asking the same.
Seriously, I don’t know why Obama bothered to do this interview at all. The only answer he seemed interested in sharing was that Fox News is a big Meany Channel with Meany Reporters who Keep Asking Questions When I Give The Only Answers I Want To Give.
However, the best question of the interview did not even come from Bill O’Reilly. It came in a letter from Kathy LaMaster of Fresno, California. Kathy asked the fantastic question … “Mr. President, why do you feel it’s necessary to fundamentally transform the nation that has afforded you so much opportunity and success?” BINGO!!! This is why Obama has no credibility anymore. Obama tried to say that, “I don’t think we have to fundamentally transform the nation” … even though he is the one who said we had to, see video below. Some how the US was fine for Obama to be afforded the opportunity of the first black man being elected president, but he has to fundamentally change it for others. Hmm?
Here is what Candidate Obama wanted for our country when he was running for President of the United States of America. He said that “we are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”
O’REILLY: OK. I got a letter from Kathy LaMaster (ph), Fresno, California. I said I would read one letter from the folks, all right?
O’REILLY: “Mr. President, why do you feel it’s necessary to fundamentally transform the nation that has afforded you so much opportunity and success?”
OBAMA: I don’t think we have to fundamentally transform the nation…
O’REILLY: But those are your words.
Snippets from interview:
With regards to the disastrous roll-out of Obamacare, President Obama claims everybody will be held accountable. REALLY? No one has been held accountable by this president with anything from Obamacare to Benghazi, from Fast & Furious to IRS-gate. Who is he kidding?
O’REILLY: And I’m paying Kathleen Sebelius’ salary and she screwed up.
O’REILLY: And you’re not holding her accountable.
OBAMA: Yes, well, I — I promise you that we hold everybody up and down the line accountable. But when we’re…
O’REILLY: But she’s still there.
Obama and O’Reilly spar on Benghazi. The president incredibly is sticking to the story that he called the Benghazi attack a terror attack, even though non-Kool Aid drinking folks know it is a lie. Obama could not answer in a “yes” or “no” manner whether he was told it was a terrorist attack.
O’REILLY: Did he tell you, Secretary Panetta, it was a terrorist attack?
OBAMA: You know what he told me was that there was an attack on our compound…
O’REILLY: He didn’t tell you…
OBAMA: — (INAUDIBLE)…
O’REILLY: – he didn’t use the word “terror?”
Really Mr. President, you did not say it was a terror attack in the ’60 Minutes’ interview, when you discussed it with Joy Behar or to the United Nations.
Bill O’Reilly’s Super Bowl interview with President Obama
O’REILLY: It’s more than that because if Susan Rice goes out and tells the world that it was a spontaneous demonstration…
O’REILLY: — off a videotape but your…
O’REILLY: — your commanders and the secretary of Defense know it’s a terror attack…
OBAMA: Now, Bill…
OBAMA: — Bill…
O’REILLY: — as an American…
OBAMA: — Bill — Bill…
O’REILLY: — I’m just confused.
OBAMA: And I’m — and I’m trying to explain it to, if you want to listen. The fact of the matter is is that people understood, at the time, something very dangerous was happening, that we were focused on making sure that we did everything we can — could — to protect them. In the aftermath, what became clear was that the security was lax, that not all the precautions and — that needed to be taken were taken and both myself and Secretary Clinton and others indicated as much.
Obama blames the FOX News blame game, good grief, how small of you.
O’REILLY: — but I just want to say that they’re — your detractors believe that you did not tell the world it was a terror attack because your campaign didn’t want that out.
OBAMA: Bill, think about…
O’REILLY: That’s what they believe.
OBAMA: – and they believe it because folks like you are telling them that.
O’REILLY: No, I’m not telling them that.
O’REILLY: I’m asking you whether you were told…
OBAMA: But — and what I’m saying is…
O’REILLY: — it was a terror attack and you…
OBAMA: — and what I’m saying is that is inaccurate.
On the IRS scandal where conservative and Tea Party groups were specifically targeted by the IRS, Obama says there was no corruption, not even a smidgeon of corruption.
O’REILLY: — so you’re saying there was no…
OBAMA: — if you are involved…
O’REILLY: — no corruption there at all, none?
OBAMA: That’s not what I’m saying.
OBAMA: That’s actually…
O’REILLY: No, no, but I want to know what…
OBAMA: — (INAUDIBLE)…
O’REILLY: — you’re saying. You’re the leader of the country.
O’REILLY: You’re saying no corruption?
OBAMA: There were some — there were some bone-headed decisions…
O’REILLY: Bone-headed decisions…
OBAMA: — out of — out of a local office…
O’REILLY: But no mass corruption?
OBAMA: Not even mass corruption, not even a smidgeon of corruption, I would say.
BTW, how about you wear a tie! Good grief, if you can’t act presidential, could you at least look presidential?
National Security Advisor Susan Rice Does ’60 Minutes’ Interview and Calls Blaming Benghazi on the Mohammed Video a ‘False Controversy’ … What Difference Does it Make, Eh?
Susan Rice just did Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton no favors with her ’60 Minutes’ interview … “FALSE CONTROVERSY”!!!
National Security Adviser Susan Rice appeared on ’60 Minutes’ to do an interview with Leslie Stahl and I have no idea why. Rice did nothing but continue the stonewalling on Benghazi. She continued the Hillary Clinton talking points of “what difference does it make” when she said during last nights interview, “I don’t have time to think about a false controversy.” Doesn’t this pretty much sum up the Obama presidency … get caught in a scandal and instead of coming clean, double down and continue to deny it. Then there was that hard hitting piece of the interview where we found out Susan Rice was a mother. Really CBS, really? But then again it is not like ’60 Minutes’ has clean hands.
The American Spectator reminds us that ’60 Minutes’
mislead the public about the cover-up effort on Benghazi-gate and the effort by the Obama administration to blame the attack on anti-Muslim tapes.
Hmm, Susan Rice says Hillary Clinton didn’t do 5 Sunday morning talk shows because she was to busy lying to the families of those killed at the Benghazi consulate. Just the kind of person that we need president, isn’t it?
Susan Rice: I don’t have time to think about a false controversy. In the midst of all of the swirl about things like talking points, the administration’s been working very, very hard across the globe to review our security of our embassies and our facilities. That’s what we ought to be focused on.
Lesley Stahl: But the questions keep coming. When someone heard that I was going to be talking to you they said, “You have to ask her why Hillary Clinton didn’t do the interview that morning.” Did she, did she smell trouble?
Susan Rice: She had just gone through an incredibly painful and stressful week. Secretary Clinton, as our chief diplomat, had to reach out to the families, had to greet the bodies upon their arrival at Andrews Air Force Base. If I were her, the last thing I would have wanted to do is five Sunday morning talk shows. So I think it’s perfectly understandable–
Lesley Stahl: So when they asked you –
Susan Rice: So when the White House asked me, I agreed to do it.
Lesley Stahl: Do you ever think, “Gee, I wish I hadn’t done that.” You know, if you hadn’t done that, I’d be calling you Madam Secretary of State maybe.
Benghazi-gate will doom Hillary Clinton. She has much explaining to do and it does make a difference Hillary!!!
Posted December 23, 2013 by Scared Monkeys
al-Qaeda, Amb. Susan Rice, Barack Obama, Benghazi-Gate, CBS, Divider in Chief, Epic Fail, Gutter Politics, Hillary Clinton, Liars, Libya, Media Bias, Middle East, Misleader, Misrepresentation, Obamanation, Scandal, Terrorism, The Lying King, Transparency, War on Terror, You Tube - VIDEO | 3 comments
Benghazi Whistleblower Gregory Hicks, the Former Deputy Chief of Mission in Libya Says I’ve Been ‘Punished’ for Speaking Out
As reported at NRO, Benghazi whistleblower Gregory Hicks, the former Deputy Chief of mission in Libya stated on ABC’s ‘This Week’ that he has been punished for speaking out about the Obama administrations response, or lack there of, to the night that terrorists attacked the Bengahzi consulate killing four Americans. Gregory Hicks had previously testified in front of Congress that “he was embarrassed” after Susan Rice appeared on the Sunday talk shows blaming the terror attack on a video. Hicks stated in his interview with ‘This Week’ that “I don’t know why I was shunted aside, put in a closet if you will,” but the American people needed to know what took place that night and need to remember those that were killed, including U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty and Tyrone S. Woods.
Gregory Hicks, the former deputy chief of mission in Libya who testified before Congress about the 9/11 attacks on an American diplomatic facility earlier this year, believes he has been “punished” for speaking out about the Obama administration’s response the night of the attack. He said he believes at least two of the Americans lost that night could have been saved if the United States had responded in time.
“I don’t know why I was punished,” Hicks said in an interview with ABC’s This Week. “I don’t know why I was shunted aside, put in a closet if you will.”
Gee, does anyone really wonder why Hicks is being punished for daring to speak the truth about Benghazi and question the actions of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton? No one can speak ill of Obama or face the consequences. As for Hillary, “what difference does it make”. Hicks also questioned the lack of judgement of the front runner for the Democrat party for the presidential nominee in 2016 … Hicks is lucky he has not been imprisoned for such heresy.
And talk about the Obama administrations appalling audacity, Susan Rice will brief Congress on the reasons to attack Syria on the Anniversary of Benghazi. What a sick, cruel joke.
Another Obamaination … U.N. Ambassador Rice, who Helped Deceived America on Beghazi Attack Promoted to National Security Adviser for Being Good Little Obama Soldier
THE SICK JOKE CONTINUES ON WE THE PEOPLE … OBAMA TRULY IS NOTHING MORE THAN A COMMUNITY AGITATOR.
Should we really be surprised? UN Ambassador Susan Rice to replace Tom Donilon in the Top National Security post. The woman who went out on five Sunday talk shows and put forth false talking points for Barack Obama in the wake of the Benghazi consulate attacks that left four Americans dead has been promoted. WHAT A JOKE. This is how Obama handles scandals. He promotes those “good little soldiers” who do his bidding. So this is how the president tries to put Benghazi behind him? Defiant to the end. Obama is not a leader, he is a thin skinned individual who has no business being president.
Benghazi Whistle-Blower Witness Greg Hicks Responds to Questions from Rep Trey Goudy (SC-R): “I Was Stunned. My Jaw Dropped. I Was Embarrassed” After Susan Rice TV Appearance on 5 Sunday Talk Shows
So this is what Barack Obama in his infinite wisdom thinks should be promoted. And you really think he will punish those in the IRS that did his bidding against the Tea Party and helped him win reelection?
Remember back when, we asked … Will Susan Rice be Obama’s New National Security Adviser after Failed Sec. of State Bid … What About Benghazi? Guess what, the sick answer is, she is.
In a major shakeup of President Obama’s foreign-policy inner circle, Tom Donilon, the national security adviser, is resigning and will be replaced by Susan E. Rice, the American ambassador to the United Nations, White House officials said late Tuesday.
The appointment, which Mr. Obama plans to make on Wednesday afternoon, puts Ms. Rice, 48, an outspoken diplomat and a close political ally, at the heart of the administration’s foreign-policy apparatus.
It is also a defiant gesture to Republicans who harshly criticized Ms. Rice for presenting an erroneous account of the deadly attacks on the American mission in Benghazi, Libya. The post of national security adviser, while powerful, does not require Senate confirmation.
Obama knew that Rice could not win confirmationto be Secretary of State, so she gets slotted into this position instead. Guess what, no Senate confirmation required. Obama is a spiteful individual, nothing more. No one would put such a lightening rod in place, unless they were just looking to be an SOB. This will have to bring the Benghazi faux talking points up again to the American attention. Is this Obama’s answer to defelct attention away from the IRS scandal or is this just Obama acting small and poking the eyes of Republicans again?
Much more at Legal Insurrection.
2016 cannot come soon enough!
Beghazi-Gate: Benghazi Talking Points Underwent 12 Revisions … Scrubbed of Terror & Al-Qaeda Reference … Obama White House Initially Said Only One Word was Edited
BENGHAZIGATE = WATERGATE … File this one under better late media investigation than never. It is obvious that Benghazi was one big Obama administration lie for political convenience because of the 2012 Presidential election.
Remember when the Obama White House and their mouth piece minions like Susan Rice came out after the attack on the Benghazi consulate that resulted in the death of four American including Ambassador Stevens and blamed it on a video tape? Of course any normal, common sense thinking person knew that was BS at the time and it was later proved to be complete BS. Benghazi “whistle-blower” witness Greg Hicks stated in from of Congressional hearings this week … “I Was Stunned. My Jaw Dropped. I Was Embarrassed.” The Obama White House said that they relied entirely on CIA talking points. NOT SO FAST … ABC News has obtained 12 different versions of the talking points that show that they were dramatically edited and scrubbed by the Obama Administration. The initial CIA talking point draft to the final one used by the White House and distributed to Congress was scrubbed of all references to terrorism, Al-Qaeda. The story goes on to say, in an email to officials at the White House and the intelligence agencies, State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland took issue with including that information because it “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? So Hillary Clinton’s spokesperson wanted to sanitize the talking points so the State department did not looks incompetent and derelict in their duty? Who thinks that Secretary of State was not aware of these changes? Seriously America … the 2016 wanna be Democrat frontrunner candidate knew it all.
So where would the directive come from to scrub the references to terrorism to a talking point of a terror attack just months before the 2012 Presidential election? Who was “The One” who’s narrative was Al-Qaeda was on pat to defeat and Bin Laden is dead (VIDEO)?
Click on pic to watch the ABC News VIDEO
ABC News has obtained 12 different versions of the talking points that show they were extensively edited as they evolved from the drafts first written entirely by the CIA to the final version distributed to Congress and to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice before she appeared on five talk shows the Sunday after that attack.
White House emails reviewed by ABC News suggest the edits were made with extensive input from the State Department. The edits included requests from the State Department that references to the Al Qaeda-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia be deleted as well references to CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack.
That would appear to directly contradict what White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said about the talking points in November.
“Those talking points originated from the intelligence community. They reflect the IC’s best assessments of what they thought had happened,” Carney told reporters at the White House press briefing on November 28, 2012. “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.”
Hmm, this is a far cry from the “only one word was edited” from the talking points spewed by Obama White House spokesman, Jay Carney. The White House has denied accusations that they mislead the American public and did not mischaracterize the White House and State Department’s role in developing of talking points regarding the attack on the American diplomatic post in Benghazi. Who are you going to believe America, Obama’s chief spin-meister Jay Carney, or your lying eyes and ears?
Carney on Friday was responding to an ABC News report that the talking points given to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice about Benghazi underwent 12 rounds of revisions with extensive input from the State Department, seemingly contradicting Carney’s claims in November.
During a White House briefing then, Carney said that the talking points “originated from the intelligence community” and the only adjustment from the White House and State Department was “changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility.’”