regulator

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.

I've always called riders who choose not to wear helmets dumbasses, but in the land of the FREE, they should choose whats right for THEMSELVES. That's the thing about freedom. But you can go right ahead and let everyone else choose whats best for you, and soon enough you'll be wearing depends waiting for the gubment worker to come change them out. Seriously are all australians raging vaginas or do any of you actually have a pair?

Isn't that SOP for the SC?

You have yourself a nice looking deity there. How often do you worship satan?

Call a redneck! I'm sure you know so many of them.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f10_1398809035 Unarmed man shot and killed by Long Beach Police. Meanwhile somebody on the other side of town was getting robbed and they were too busy shooting unarmed people. Fantastic work California policemen.

I would also say based on his recent outburst.. that his brown sugar dating options might just have become a little bit more limited. But yours seem to have opened up quite nicely. Jungle fever. Catch it.

It is all about the divisiveness Mrs Love... from Wiki She has said that if elected to Congress, she would “join the Congressional Black Caucus and try to take that thing apart from the inside out” and has described the Democrat-dominated Caucus as characterized by “...demagoguery. They sit there and ignite emotions and ignite racism when there isn’t. They use their positions to instill fear. Hope and change is turned into fear and blame. Fear that everybody is going to lose everything and blaming Congress for everything instead of taking responsibility."[42] http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705396842/Love-would-take-apart-Congressional-Black-Caucus-if-elected-in-Utahs-4th-District.html I bet that resonates quite well with the voters of Utah It resonates for any voter that has more than two bits of common sense. Too bad you don't qualify.

You are so predictable. IF someone mentions guns you jump right on stand your ground as being racist and if someone mentions jesus you just have to pop off with the GOP in your first comment. By the way...hearing liberals cry about blood in the streets make me laugh.

BOOOM I was wondering how long it would take you to make a remark and associate the GOP and jesus. Now, not only can you read Jesus' mind you can read every persons mind who doesn't fit into accordance with your little political agenda. How lonely it must be all the way up there with noone to sit next to you because you love to alienate people. Enjoy the silence.

Negative. Bundy is almost certainly going to ultimately lose, but that is also not the point of this thread. It's about the anarchist attitudes. Quade...take this picture and stick it where the rest of your whiny ass attitude resides.

Well for that to happen you have to find another human that is attracted to you.

'Does anyone here doubt that the right wingers on this board would advocate arresting such people with as much prejudice as possible? Or that they would fantasize that they were killed during the arrest?' ======================================== Where would dropzone.com be if billvon wasn't blaming right wingers for all the worlds evil deeds on a daily basis? Just to let you know...all politicians are liars. But it's so nice for you to demonize only one party over and over again. So predictable its pathetic.

If you go around shoplifting, self diagnose as a kleptomaniac but were never caught, were you a criminal? If you kill someone, self diagnose as a psychopath but get away with it, are you a criminal? If you are diagnosed as a troll that makes asshole comments more often than not, then its probably very accurate.

Saved from what? "You think preaching all that bullshit is going to save you? You were just talking about prostituting someone's daughter" -skinnay

Yes make sure everyone knows how they won't be saved because you know you wont.

The amount of threads you have created bashing peoples religous beliefs are close to equalling my posts on gun rights.

I've seen this before. This dude got his ass handed to him. And quite handily. He deserved it.

http://www.break.com/video/base-jumping-from-the-freedom-tower-in-nyc-2590999

I have not heard of this movie and know nothing of it. However there is another movie with religous tones making its way around theaters. This one looks fairly good in the previews. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1959490/

So what you're saying is that the term redskin only offends those with whispering eyes? Here is a group of photos of navajo code talkers wearing redskins gear. They don't appear to be offended. https://www.google.com/search?q=native+america+code+talkers+at+redskins+game&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=kqMjU6fDDomL2AX_-YHwBw&ved=0CCcQsAQ&biw=1920&bih=1099

I was wondering about that too....you clearly would be happiest if all women just didn't talk until spoken to. Which is exactly why I want you to shhh right now. shhh woman. Before I raise my hand on you.

Fixed it for you.

You want to clarify 'certain'?

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi says the word “Redskins” is a slur that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office should not protect. “We all respect freedom of speech, but the trademark office has rejected names which are considered offensive and they should do it now,” Pelosi told the National Congress of American Indians, via the Huffington Post. “They can keep their name on the team, but when it comes to all the stuff — that’s serious money. So I think that is one path that we can go.” The NFL and its teams have trademarks that prevent unauthorized sellers from selling merchandise with team names, colors and logos. Losing the trademark on the name would allow anyone to print knockoff Redskins gear and cost the team and the league millions of dollars a year in merchandising. Dan Snyder may not be willing to change the Redskins’ name because some Native Americans are offended by it, but he would likely change his mind on the subject if losing the trademark affected the team’s profitability. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/03/13/nancy-pelosi-says-redskins-should-lose-their-trademark/related/ Since when did this cunt earn enough credit to made decisions for a privately owned NFL franchise?