THE RICE (OBAMA) LIE, NICELY SUMMARIZED....

On Sunday's Meet the Press, Lindsay Graham put it succinctly.....

GREGORY: We are back. Joined now by the man leading the charge against the Obama administration and U.N. ambassador Susan Rice on this issue of Benghazi, the senior senator from South Carolina, Republican Lindsey Graham. Senator, let’s get right into it. You’ve just heard the chairs of the Intelligence Committees on Benghazi. The bottom line point, did Director Petraeus call this terrorism from the get go? They say yes. They don’t understand why the administration didn’t call it the same two days later. How do you react?

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC; Armed Services Committee): Well, I think one of the reasons that Susan Rice told the story she did, if the truth came out a few weeks before the election that our consulate in Benghazi, Libya, had been overrun by an al Qaeda sponsored or affiliated militia, that destroys the narrative we’ve been hearing for months that al Qaeda has been dismantled, bin Laden is dead, we’re safer. And Susan Rice just did not say it was a result of a mob spawned by a video like Cairo. She actually said on Face The Nation, “I want to remind the American people this president promised to go after bin Laden, refocus on al Qaeda. He got bin Laden. Al Qaeda has been dismantled.” And the truth of the matter is nothing could’ve been further from the truth, and the story she told reinforced a political narrative helpful to the president, but disconnected from reality.

GREGORY: But let me just interrupt on that point. Let’s be–be very clear about what you’re saying because you also heard Senator Feinstein say unequivocally the notion that there was a cover-up or an attempt to mislead for political reasons is absolutely wrong. She says that it’s character assassination, the way you’re criticizing her, who–you believe the president of the United States sent his ambassador to the U.N. out to mislead the American people so that he could get some sort of political gain before the election? That’s the cover-up you–you’re accusing them of?

SEN. GRAHAM: No. I’m saying that the ambassador that had nothing to do with Benghazi–why would you choose someone who had nothing to do with Benghazi to tell us about Benghazi? That’s kind of odd. The president said, why pick on her? She didn’t know anything about Benghazi. She was the most politically compliant person they could find. I don’t know what she knew but I know the story she told was misleading. I don’t know why it was misleading. But let me put this in context. Would this White House mislead the American people about national security events? I think they might simply because when the bin Laden raid occurred, they leaked every detail about the raid. We have a Pakistani doctor in custody because he told about the role he played. The underwear bomber case where we stopped a plot in Yemen came out in the New York Times. They told us about how this administration stopped the cyber–the role of cyber attacks on Iranian nuclear program in three weeks. We heard a lot of details about classified information to make this president look good. So if they would leak classified information to make him look good, would they withhold information to prevent him from looking bad? I think you could say look at that. …

GRAHAM: [T]o say the intelligence community did a good job, what about the months before this attack? What about the rise of al Qaeda in Benghazi? What about the British ambassador closing the consulate in Benghazi because it was too dangerous for the British? What about the Red Cross leaving? What about all of the warnings come out of Benghazi? Did the CIA tell the president that Benghazi is falling into the hands of al Qaeda? And I blame the president more than anybody else. Susan rice is a bit player here. Was he informed of the June attack on our consulate where they blew a hole where 40 people could go through? Was he aware of the August 15th cable where Stevens was saying we can’t withstand a coordinated al Qaeda attack? There are 10 militia groups all over Benghazi. I blame the president for…

This is getting too hot for comfort, so Gregory steps in to try to prevent further damage to Obama:

GREGORY: Senator…

SEN. GRAHAM: …making this a death trap. I blame the president for not having assets available to help these people for eight hours. We need a select committee not only to look at intelligence failures, but how could the Department of Defense not help these poor people for over eight hours and why did the Department of State for months ignore pleas for help?

The conversation turned to the potential nomination of Susan Rice to succeed Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State:

GREGORY: Senator, can Susan Rice be confirmed of Secretary of State if nominated by the president?

SEN. GRAHAM: I don’t know. You know, I’m deferential to the president’s picks. I voted for Kagan and Sotomayor. Senator Obama voted against John Bolton, Alito and Roberts. He had a very high bar for confirmation. I have a very low bar. I’m going to listen to what Susan Rice has to say, put her entire record in context, but I’m not going to give her a plus for passing on a narrative that was misleading to the American people…

GREGORY: You wouldn’t filibuster her nomination?

SEN. GRAHAM: …and whether she knew it was misleading or not. I’m going to wait and see what the State Department’s review has, but I’m very disappointed in Susan Rice, somebody who had nothing–who knew nothing about Benghazi, telling a story that was disconnected from reality that did make the president look good at a time when quite frankly the narrative should have been challenged, not reinforced that al Qaeda was dismantled. That’s what they wanted us to believe, that al Qaeda was dismantled, and Benghazi was exhibit A that that storyline was not working and was untrue.

Kudos to Graham...............

Counterpoint:

GOP Rep Admits CIA Approved U.N. Ambassador’s Talking Points On Libya

Rep. Peter King (R-NY) has admitted that the CIA and intelligence community approved U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice’s talking points before she made her much-derided Sept. 16 appearance on several Sunday news shows to discuss the attacks in Benghazi. King, one of the most outspoken critics of the Obama administration’s response to the attack, came to his conclusion following testimony from former CIA Director David Petraeus. After leaving the closed-door hearing, King spoke with reporters for several minutes about Petraeus’ statements. Rice’s television appearances were among the topics discussed, leading King to indicate that while Petraeus did not personally write Rice’s talking points, the CIA did approve them:

Q: Did he say why it was taken out of the talking points that [the attack] was Al Qaeda affiliated?
KING: He didn’t know.
Q: He didn’t know? What do you mean he didn’t know?
KING: They were not involved — it was done, the process was completed and they said, “Ok go with those talking points.” Again it’s interagency — I got the impression that 7, 8, 9 different agencies.
Q: Did he give you the impression that he was upset it was taken out?
KING: No.
Q: You said the CIA said “OK” to the revised report –
KING: No, well, they said in that, after it goes through the process, they OK’d it to go. Yeah, they said “Okay for it to go.”

http://thinkprogress.org/security/20...nts/?mobile=nc

Please address why Obama sent Rice out to lie to the American public regarding Benghazi...................... ...Sen. Graham summarized it nicely...I would like to hear your response to what Graham said....

Read what i Posted.

Tell me why the CIA approved her talking points Whirly!!!!!

You posted what someone else said; I want to know in your own words....

Why did Obama send Rice out to promote a phony story ?

If the WH didn't want to reveal secrets, that is a side issue to the fact Obama sent Rice out on the lying tour to Sunday talk shows....

But as we know, the WH isn't shy about revealing state secrets if it helps them politically.

You posted what someone else said; I want to know in your own words....

Why did Obama send Rice out to promote a phony story ? Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Unclassified talking points that were approved by the CIA are not a "phony story" Whirlyturd.

If you think the talking points were a "phony story" why did the CIA approve them WHRILY?

The CIA never approved phony talking points....that concoction is all on Obama...................

Unclassified talking points that were approved by the CIA are not a "phony story" Whirlyturd.

If you think the talking points were a "phony story" why did the CIA approve them WHRILY? Originally Posted by markroxny

The CIA never approved phony talking points....that concoction is all on Obama................... Originally Posted by Whirlaway

You are wrong, they did approve them. Rep King admitted as much!!!

The bottom line is nobody acted when they were suppose to act. This is nothing more than a big political cheap shot to the victim's and the country in general. This thing has recieved a great deal of publicity and new facts are emerging all the time. The sad thing is it was an orchestrated incident that went south quick. Thats becoming more and more apparent.


http://youtu.be/VbyhSJZ6pak

No he didn't.....you are doing a head fake...the King quote is not speaking to what Rice said on the Sunday talk shows...

But Sen. Graham was...and he calls the Obama/Rice Sunday talk show circuit a purposeful intention to mislead the American public.

No he didn't.....you are doing a head fake...the King quote is not speaking to what Rice said on the Sunday talk shows... Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Huh? What she said was from the talking points.

You can't win this Whirly, this issue is dead. You are tyring to cling to it because you hate Obama.

Nothing will come from this bullshit.

They need to address why the initial security wasn't sufficient, why he was there when others had left. Make corrections so that this never happens again and move on. This won't bring down Obama dude, sorry.

Graham was clear; and he is top level security clearances....you are mistaken to link the King quote to the willful intent of Obama to deceive us about terrorism, Al Queda, Benghazi and threats against Americans.

Gregory would have been quick to counter with the same arguments you are trying to make but fail........Gregory is smart and knows it is a head fake to use a dubious King quote to defend the Obama lie.

Huh? What she said was from the talking points.

You can't win this Whirly, this issue is dead. You are tyring to cling to it because you hate Obama.

Nothing will come from this bullshit.

They need to address why the initial security wasn't sufficient, why he was there when others had left. Make corrections so that this never happens again and move on. This won't bring down Obama dude, sorry. Originally Posted by markroxny

To reiterate:

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC; Armed Services Committee): Well, I think one of the reasons that Susan Rice told the story she did, if the truth came out a few weeks before the election that our consulate in Benghazi, Libya, had been overrun by an al Qaeda sponsored or affiliated militia, that destroys the narrative we’ve been hearing for months that al Qaeda has been dismantled, bin Laden is dead, we’re safer. And Susan Rice just did not say it was a result of a mob spawned by a video like Cairo. She actually said on Face The Nation, “I want to remind the American people this president promised to go after bin Laden, refocus on al Qaeda. He got bin Laden. Al Qaeda has been dismantled.” And the truth of the matter is nothing could’ve been further from the truth, and the story she told reinforced a political narrative helpful to the president, but disconnected from reality.

And Marxy purposefully left out the key part of the King statement which reads:

On ABC's "This Week," House Homeland Security Chairman Peter King (R-N.Y.) said the talking points changed after they left the CIA: "[S]omewhere after it left the intelligence community, somewhere in the administration, there was very vital language taken out."

In other words, the Administration altered the language to fit their big lie narrative that it wasn't terrorism, but a video !

And Marxy purposefully left out the key part of the King statement which reads:

On ABC's "This Week," House Homeland Security Chairman Peter King (R-N.Y.) said the talking points changed after they left the CIA: "[S]omewhere after it left the intelligence community, somewhere in the administration, there was very vital language taken out."

In other words, the Administration altered the language to fit their big lie narrative that it wasn't terrorism, but a video ! Originally Posted by Whirlaway

According to him, because there is a counter claim that the admin only changed a couple of words. That still doesn't change the fact that the CIA approved Rice's talking points Whirly. You don't wanna address that tho do you.