Obama admin has issued threats against the Benghazi whistleblowers?

No! Benghazi is one attack in a long list of many throughout this and prior administrations. The loss of life is always a tragedy, but the political theater does nothing to help. Even John McCain has said that the White House did not change Susan Rice's talking points:

http://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressOffice.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=1f7201ae-deb2-3bd7-2df3-367822c1a46a

So why are the Republicans still dredging this crap up, if for no other reason than to make a pre-emptive attack on Hillary?

I thought Rice was extremely uncomfortable when she made the early statements. I felt that she looked like she didn't believe in what she was saying.

Even one of the Obama lapdogs at the Washington Post agrees that there were new revelations at the hearings yesterday:

Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-benghazi-hearings-whats-new-and-whats-not/2013/05/08/d0953a28-b831-11e2-b94c-b684dda07add_blog.html

Obama supporters only want to talk about gay marriage, amnesty, fair share, and a made-up war on women. But when people want to talk about issues that matter, like Benghazi, transparency, debt, and national security, they call it "Foolish Stunts" and witch hunts.

America got "set up" by this administration. Requests to enhance security before-the-fact were turned down, and when the event was in progress, rescuers were told to stand down.

Who gave the order to stand down? think about that carefully....who had the authority?
Why was Hicks demoted after questioning the film excuse?
Who told Rice to use talking points that were wrong?

We had assets in Tripoli, It is only 630 miles to Benghazi. Why couldn’t they get there in time?

Obama was nowhere to be seen, while his minions stumbled over themselves.

Wake up and smell the evil you have voted into office.

At best Benghazi showed the complete incompetence of this administration. At worst, they are completely responsible for the deaths of four Americans and the lied to cover it up.

I think it is a little of both, but time will tell.

"So why are the Republicans still dredging this crap up ...?"

Maybe they don't want to except things that they know aren't right.

Well, well, it sure gets lively around here when New Buzzard drops in. Too bad he has no idea what he is talking about. He is wrong about everything political.

He is just defending 2 bad choices he made. It must be tough doing this for 4+ years.

I like News Buzz, He reminds me of a member from an old forum. I didn't agree with him then either but still liked him.

We could enjoy a beer together!

Outerlimits wrote:"...Why was Hicks demoted after questioning the film excuse...?"

News Buzzard will have your answer shortly.

News Buzzard will have his answer IF he can find a link that suits his purpose.

He will probably find one if he looks hard enough.

Yep, you can usually find an opposing view to anything somewhere, especially when it comes to the current administration and company.

rici
Andrew Napolitano
Liz Peek
Peter Johnson Jr
Liberal media spin Benghazi scandal to protect Team Obama
By Dan GainorPublished May 09, 2013FoxNews.com


Highlights from House hearing on Benghazi

Who changed the Benghazi talking points and why?

'Stunning' revelations from Benghazi hearing
In the real world, when you cover up four murders after the fact, you likely go to jail. In government, you retire with dignity and run for president with full media support.

Up until yesterday, that was the Benghazi scenario following the death of four Americans including our ambassador to Libya.

The Obama administration has lied, stonewalled, bullied, and intimidated – the true marks of an open and transparent administration. And, with a few notable exceptions, the American media haven’t just let them get away it. Heck, they’ve helped.

Hill testimony of State Department whistleblowers might change that, but it’s doubtful given the one-sided reporting so far.

The Obama administration has lied, stonewalled, bullied, and intimidated – the true marks of an open and transparent administration.
NBC said there was an “obvious political undercurrent” to the hearings and accused the GOP of going after the “most popular Democrat,” Hillary Clinton.

The New York Times public editor criticized her own paper’s Benghazi coverage and The Washington Post’s Twitter account inexplicably mocked those Tweeting about the case as “Chick-fil-A lovers.” AP even called it a “GOP” hearing, to make sure readers saw it as partisan.

A Politico story about CBS showed the truly insidious nature of media bias on this story and how the network held back Emmy award-winning reporter Sharyl Attkisson. “CBS News executives see Attkisson wading dangerously close to advocacy on the issue, network sources have told Politico,” wrote Dylan Byers. So much so that Attkisson is “in talks to leave CBS ahead of contract.” As a result, she hadn’t even reported on the Libya attack for five months.

It hasn’t just been CBS that has been trying to corral this story. New York Times coverage might still damage the administration even though that paper has tried to prevent it. MSNBC's sometime conservative, former Florida Republican Congressman Joe Scarborough, even Tweeted about Thursday’s Times story, saying it “should cause great concerns in the White House.”

That piece, “Diplomat Says Questions Over Benghazi Led to Demotion,” detailed State Department retaliation against one witness, saying “the prospects for the 2016 presidential election” could be impacted.

Of course, the article minimized that impact. “Mr. Hicks offered an unbecoming view of political supervision and intimidation inside the Obama administration,” wrote three Times staffers.

Unbecoming? Quite the understatement. Hey, sorry we ruined your career. That’s so unbecoming.

Public Editor Margaret Sullivan took her own paper to task, but also blamed Fox News for having “fomented” criticism of the Times. “In fact, what’s been written in The Times has been solid. But my sense is that, starting last fall, The Times has had a tendency to both play down the subject, which has significant news value, and to pursue it most aggressively as a story about political divisiveness rather than one about national security mistakes and the lack of government transparency,” she concluded.

The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank treated the testimony as if witnesses were lying. His column called the sworn comments a “yarn” and referred to our No. 2 diplomat in Libya as a “virtuoso storyteller.” Milbank pushed the standard lefty response you can expect to see at least till November, 2016: “Hicks didn’t lay a glove on the former secretary of state Wednesday.”

It wasn’t just the traditional media spinning for Team Obama. Lefty outlets did their darnedest to downplay the death of four Americans, including the only U.S. ambassador killed since 1979.

On MSNBC, NBC News Political Director Chuck Todd undercut the scandal on the May 8 “Morning Joe.” Todd called the decision to not send more special ops forces to Benghazi “very rational.” Host Rachel Maddow blasted the GOP on her May 8 show for an organized conspiracy to make Obama resign, calling it “the most ambitious thing they have done.”

Comedian Jon Stewart devoted 8 and a half minutes attacking the GOP for the hearings, even bringing up Nixon cover-ups and saying the party has “a history of hysteria.” Increasingly, his role isn’t to make jokes. It’s as Obama’s Youth Ambassador/Spinmeister.

The liberal propaganda site Huffington Post incredibly didn’t even mention the hearings on the front page, just an attack on Fox’s coverage. Buried on the Politics page was the approved Democratic spin: “Benghazi Hearing Reveals Incompetence, But No Cover-Up.” Instead, it found room for stories on food addiction, “the female word for blowjob,” and “The Incredible Name Kevin Spacey Picked For His Rescue Dog.”

Other liberal sites went even further, ignoring the hearing and the testimony entirely. The Nation, Alternet and Democracy Now had no visible coverage. That’s a far cry from how the left reacted to even something as mundane as the NRA convention, where no terrorists killed four Americans.

It doesn’t really matter how they spin it, the news continues to get out. But if all major news outlets do is cover for the administration, they may well succeed in protecting their 2016 candidate.


Dan Gainor is the Boone Pickens Fellow and the Media Research Center’s Vice President for Business and Culture. He writes frequently about media for Fox News Opinion. He can also be contacted on Facebook and Twitter as dangainor.



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/05/09/liberal-media-spin-benghazi-scandal-to-protect-team-obama/#ixzz2StH2S6yc

The king of the witch hunt, Rep Issa, stated: This hearing is concluded! You bet it is!!

...and the neo-Stalinists are delighted...

News Buzzard wrote:The king of the witch hunt, Rep Issa, stated: This hearing is concluded! You bet it is!!

Exclusive: Benghazi Talking Points Underwent 12 Revisions, Scrubbed of Terror Reference

ABC-News

When it became clear last fall that the CIA’s now discredited Benghazi talking points were flawed, the White House said repeatedly the documents were put together almost entirely by the intelligence community, but White House documents reviewed by Congress suggest a different story.

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.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/exclusive-benghazi-talking-points-underwent-12-revisions-scrubbed-of-terror-references/

Is this a random act of journalism by ABC News or did we just witness the first rat jump off the sinking ship?

Why the heck didn't the right jump on this before the election? This could have changed everything.

[quote="Outerlimits"]

"...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..."

The Marxists even lie to one of their own!

...actually, that's no surprise at all...

WHL wrote:News Buzzard will have his answer IF he can find a link that suits his purpose.

fshnski wrote:He will probably find one if he looks hard enough.

In typical fashion, on this Forum of Gloom, you attack the messenger when you don't like the message. And now it seems that the Right Wing is more interested in the talking points rather than the event itself. Could a lack of funding have conributed to the attack? Either way, this whole event is gaining no traction against Obama or Clinton.

Fsh, I think the Rep. are so afraid of being attacked by the drive by that they don't dare to say anything. They know whatever they say will be twisted to make them llok like the bad guys. They should have made a big deal about it BEFORE the election as you said, but I don't think they could. Unfortunately the news has too much control in this country and most people believe their lies (and Obama's lies).

I'd like to know why there seems to have been a white washing of the facts on Benghazi? Why did they try so hard to convince us Boston wasn't a terrorist attack? Are they running scared? Are they afraid they might offend someone in another part of the world? Or are they just inept?

Obama said this in 2008:

"Here's the important thing about that 3 a.m. phone call. What you want is somebody who is, first of all, gonna get all the facts and gather up good intelligence. The second thing you want is somebody who is able to analyze the situation, the costs and benefits of action".

Now why weren't we thinking "re-election" here?

Some of us were.

Outerlimits wrote:

News Hawk wrote:If Benghazi "gets legs", it'll be the end of Hillary in 2016!

I believe Hillary is now done for 2016.

It may be the end for Obama as well.   He could end up very toxic and we are seeing some signs of this happening already.  

Can the country handle a Lame Duck president for 3 years?  

Of course if Obama needs to make a SC appointment, that could change everything.

The Pentagon was demanding Hillary allow them to send help to Benghazi

An email recently obtained by Judicial Watch shows that the Pentagon was demanding Hillary allow them to send help to Benghazi during the 2012 attack. This would completely contradict the claim from Hillary and Leon Panetta that no forces were available and within reach to provide help to the compound that was under siege.

From Fox News:

As the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was unfolding, a high-ranking Pentagon official urgently messaged Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's top deputies to offer military help, according to an email obtained by Judicial Watch.

The revelation appears to contradict testimony Defense Secretary Leon Panetta gave lawmakers in 2013, when he said there was no time to get forces to the scene in Libya, where four Americans were killed, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens.

I just tried you on the phone but you were all in with S [apparent reference to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton], reads the email, from Panetta's chief of staff Jeremy Bash. 'After consulting with General Dempsey, General Ham and the Joint Staff, we have identified the forces that could move to Benghazi. They are spinning up as we speak.'

The email was sent out at 7:19 p.m. ET on Sept. 11, 2012, in the early stages of the eight-hour siege that also claimed the lives of Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith and two former Navy SEALs, Ty Woods and Glen Doherty, private CIA contractors who raced to the aid of embattled State Department workers.

Although the email came after the first wave of the attack at the consulate, it occurred before a mortar strike on the CIA annex killed Woods and Doherty.

This leaves no doubt military assets were offered and ready to go, and awaiting State Department signoff, which did not come, Judicial Watch, a nonprofit government watchdog said in a statement.
—rightscoop

Hillary may not get that nomination—which is both good news and bad.



.