Header Image (book)


Saturday, May 11, 2013

On ABC News, May 10, 2013

Read Exclusive: Benghazi Talking Points Underwent 12 Revisions, Scrubbed of Terror Reference (hat tip to Infidel Bloggers Alliance).

Brief excerpt:
...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....
Read it all HERE.

Additional information from the BBC News: After Benghazi revelations, heads will roll.

Are Americans paying attention? Do Americans care?


  1. House of cards on Benghazi is falling, but the damage won't hurt Hillary or Obama, watch and see.


    Right Truth

  2. They need to get off the talking point issue and move on to the heart of the matter. Why wasn't help sent. Otherwise this will be seen as petty by many.

  3. According to Carney, this is no more than GOP politics. After all, what difference does it make? Hillary's table pounding during her testimony before congress was interesting, to say the least.

  4. "Are Americans paying attention? Do Americans care?"

    The majority won't even hear about this unless it is scrolled across the bottom of what ever reality TV show they happen to be watching (and we know the odds of that happening)

  5. Hey, hey, hey ... there's nothing to see here. It's just a guy being a Chicago politician.

  6. This from Peggy Noonan:

    "From the day of the attack until this week, the White House spin was too clever by half. In the weeks and months after the attack White House spokesmen said they were investigating the story, an internal review was under way. When the story blew open again, last week, they said it was too far in the past: "Benghazi happened a long time ago." Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, really said that."

    B.O. is a smirking, fraud; Hillary is a fraudulent, ill tempered crone. Anyone who supports this trash is either a communist or an idiot or BOTH! You know who you are!

  7. Hillary Clinton was not under oath when she testified before Congress about Benghazi. I think that a lot people believe that she committed perjury; technically and legally, she did not.

  8. Title 18, Part I, Chapter 47 US Code

    § 1001. Statements or entries generally

    (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—

    (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;

    (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or

    (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;

    Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.

    Moreover, Contempt of Congress is the act of obstructing the work of the US Congress, or one or more of its committees.

    So the question really is, does Boehner have the guts to proceed along these lines? I vote, no.

  9. Do Americans care? This one doesn't (ad the majority is with me).

    What this all boils down to is calling the attackers extremists vs. terrorists (as they were identified fairly soon after the attack).
    Now as far as I'm concerned Sam, you can call them your momma.

    The hearings have not in any way shown that a military response was practical or likely to be effective. At most, this is evidence of misjudgment and i repeat, at the very most.

    But we look forward to the Baggers continuing to harp on this. Call for impeachment, PLEASE.
    This is going to be a bigger fiasco than Herman Cain.

  10. The hearings have not in any way shown that a military response was practical or likely to be effective. At most, this is evidence of misjudgment and i repeat, at the very most.

    I see, so the impractical military response, that was likely to be ineffective, was a misjudgment? Seriously? Do you have any brains at all?

  11. Do you mean Ben Rhodes, the genius who came up with the "insulting video" idea, brother of David Rhodes, President of CBS? That Rhodes?

    Yes, I can see that the White House is oozing with honesty.

  12. Sam, then why were the screens removed?


We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective