regulator 0 #1 May 7, 2014 Last week, in response to a Freedom of Information request filed by Judicial Watch, the White House released a memo related to Benghazi that was authored by Ben Rhodes, the deputy national security adviser for strategic communication. The four-page memo, written a few days after the attacks, was designed to prep Susan Rice for her upcoming appearances on several Sunday talk shows. Among other things, it addressed the anti-American protests that had first sprung up in Egypt and then spread throughout the Middle East, including this line as one of the goals of her appearances: To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy. Republicans say this is a "smoking gun" of a White House cover-up on Benghazi. But is it? Here are 10 things you should know: First things first: this memo should have been released earlier, and conservatives are fully justified in asking why it took a FOIA request to finally shake it loose. That said, as an adviser for "strategic communication"—what the rest of us call spin—Ben Rhodes' job is explicitly political, providing guidance on how to put the administration's foreign policy actions in the best light. Nine hours before Rhodes sent his email, the CIA had provided its assessment of what caused the attacks in Benghazi: "We believe based on currently available information that the attacks in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US consulate and subsequently its annex." The Cairo protests, in turn, were inspired by the YouTube video "Innocence of Muslims," which is why Rhodes mentioned the video in his memo. As it happens, it turned out that there were no protests earlier in the day in Benghazi—but at the time, that was what the CIA believed. However, multiple sources—including McClatchy, Al Jazeera, the New York Times, and then deputy CIA director Michael Morell—have confirmed that anger toward the YouTube video did play a role in motivating the initial attacks. Multiple sources also confirm that that the Benghazi attacks were opportunistic—organized hastily to take advantage of the Cairo protests, not planned days or weeks ahead of time. Susan Rice, in all her Sunday show appearances, was properly cautious about the role of the video, the nature of the attacks, and the fact that everything she said was tentative and based on "the best information we have to date." Like any administration, the Obama White House wanted to put the best face on its Middle East policy, and there's no question that their public statements were designed to do just that. Nevertheless, the Republican theory that Obama was afraid to blame Benghazi on terrorism has never really made any sense; there's simply never been any evidence of anything more than a fairly routine amount of spin in the aftermath of the attacks. So: A "smoking gun"? "Cold, hard evidence” of an Obama cover-up? Just like Watergate? Hardly. Even George Will doesn't believe that. The video really did play a role in the Cairo protests and then the Benghazi attacks, and there was never anything wrong with saying so. It's inexplicable that Republicans think this memo proves anything more damning than that. Creating a report and stating 'this is what the CIA believed' has got to take the cake for ineffective reporting on the highest level. Next up...the obama's go on vacation 120 days a year because obama THINKS he's actually a good golfer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
regulator 0 #2 May 7, 2014 http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2014/05/benghazi-explained-ben-rhodes-foia Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,175 #3 May 7, 2014 It would be very helpful if you would indicate somehow what is text lifted from a source (such as Mother Jones) and what is your own commentary. You know, Literacy 101 kind of stuff.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #4 May 7, 2014 kallend It would be very helpful if you would indicate somehow what is text lifted from a source (such as Mother Jones) and what is your own commentary. You know, Literacy 101 kind of stuff. Maybe you should go back and review the whole of the threads you started in the past year shhheeeeeshhh"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jgoose71 0 #5 May 7, 2014 QuoteNine hours before Rhodes sent his email, the CIA had provided its assessment of what caused the attacks in Benghazi: "We believe based on currently available information that the attacks in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US consulate and subsequently its annex." The CIA has called this statement a lie. They knew it was a pre-planned attack by Al-Qaeda affiliates within hours and briefed their channels as such. There is hours of testimony to congress by all kinds of CIA officials stating as much."There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #6 May 7, 2014 jgoose71The CIA has called this statement a lie. They knew it was a pre-planned attack by Al-Qaeda affiliates within hours and briefed their channels as such. There is hours of testimony to congress by all kinds of CIA officials stating as much. And . . . so what? Do you truly believe the CIA always tells the truth in every instance? First, understand what the facility at Benghazi actually was; it was a CIA spy station. They had a number of agents posted there and a number of contractors. "Ambassadors" to postings like that are typically the head of the spies. Cover stories go hand in hand with spying. You can look all through the history of CIA postings and when they get over run, typically a cover story is put in place instantly about causes and who does what where. Lies are told all the time. Sometimes for good, sometimes for evil. In either case, it's part of the business. The fact is, you, me and almost everyone we will ever know will never know if this was a case of good or evil. Yes, four Americans died and that is tragic. It's also entirely possible that a dozen or more agents got out because of the lies told that day.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jgoose71 0 #7 May 8, 2014 Honesty I believe the CIA more than the Obama administration in this case. Why? Because the Obama admin has hid documents, changed documents and redacted documents. If it's the CIA's fault, why doesn't he just release everything, get it out in the open and be done with it? I know that if he did that, there would still be people out there that would still blame him, but at least when he labeled them as crazies, he would have a point. Right now though he is not being the open, honest and accountable administration that he promised."There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,175 #8 May 8, 2014 rushmc*** It would be very helpful if you would indicate somehow what is text lifted from a source (such as Mother Jones) and what is your own commentary. You know, Literacy 101 kind of stuff. Maybe you should go back and review the whole of the threads you started in the past year shhheeeeeshhh Maybe you should, since I use either quotation marks or italics to indicate quoted text.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #9 May 8, 2014 kallend****** It would be very helpful if you would indicate somehow what is text lifted from a source (such as Mother Jones) and what is your own commentary. You know, Literacy 101 kind of stuff. Maybe you should go back and review the whole of the threads you started in the past year shhheeeeeshhh Maybe you should, since I use either quotation marks or italics to indicate quoted text. ...and you create proper clickies that are often lengthier than your commentary. I applaud your indolence...Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites