Benghazi e-mails show clash between State Department, CIA

[Gerald]

Joshua Roberts/Reuters - White House spokesman Jay Carney was peppered with questions about the Benghazi attacks during a news conference at the White House on Friday.

New details from administration e-mails about last year’s attacks on the U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya, demonstrate that an intense bureaucratic clash took place between the State Department and the CIA over which agency would get to tell the story of how the tragedy unfolded.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...sEnabled=false

Note: 5.10.13

[Onkel Neal]

Hmmm.... this is beginning to smell like Watergate.

[Red October1984]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Hmmm.... this is beginning to smell like Watergate.

Hopefully it has the same outcome too.

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Hmmm.... this is beginning to smell like Watergate.

where is Yubba when you need him? On a side note, I think the stuff about the IRS is scary. If there's one government department that needs a leash on it, it's the IRS.

[Jimbuna]

Link not working (in the UK anyway).

[Skybird]

The whole story stunk from day one on.

Heck, it already stunk for some time ahead of the event.

Delusional Clinton created big, big poopoo there. So far by all what I have read about it in past months I credit here with the lion's share of responsibility.

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Hmmm.... this is beginning to smell like Watergate.

Is it?

Not seeing much of any top-level involvement here, which would be a big difference to Watergate.


Of course I'm forgetting that every scandal must be compared to Watergate at every possible moment.

"It just stinks on every level. This makes Watergate look like child's play,

Bachmann on Solyndra.

[Skybird]

Tchocky, Clintons involvement in prohibiting reinforcements to the embassy and her demand that no security measures worth the name are to be run there, has been reported already months ago. Use the search button, I either ran a dedicated thread on that or at least linked some articles in some threads's reply of mine.

There is involvement - at the very top of the hierarchy. I mean only the president is above her, right!?

What we see now is a hedging and squirming of her group, because she wants to become the next president. And for that mission, such a total failure like over the Benghazi terror attack does not really serve as a recommendation. Some Islamic thug may have pulled the trigger and ran the torturing of Americans during that plot (qhich was coming with an early warning note, btw.) - but the responsibility to leave the victims exposed and unprotected and to ignore the warnings, is Clinton's.

The early warnings of the intel srvrices hardly were ordered by Obama, he hardly told them to produce the kind of evidence and clues he needed to justify any action, like Bush had instructed the CIA to construct a case against Hussein, which they did, and later, when the blame game began, the CIA was left alone and Bush hid behind it. The early warnings from Benghazi do not compare to that kind of plot. What various subordinate instances now seem to have been told - last but not least by Clinton -, is to not reveal the truth behind the terror attack. And it seems that this time the CIA was no easily complying with that, at least internally.

[mookiemookie]

Hey remember when the Republicans got all pissed and demanded hearings and impeachment and whatnot when Bush, Cheney, et. al. lied about WMDs in Iraq and 4,500 U.S. soldiers and 100,000 Iraqi civilians died? No?

Hey remember when the embassies and consulates was attacked in India, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia again, Pakistan again, Syria, Greece, Yemen twice, as well as the numerous attacks on the embassy in Iraq, all during Bush's term in office - remember when Republicans got all pissed about that and demanded hearings and impeachment? No?

It's disgusting that the GOP is parading the corpses of these four Americans around for purely political purposes. They don't give two craps about them because they're dead Americans. They care about them because they can be used to attack Obama.

Is it?

No, its just a side affect from a set of undercover operations that didn't go well.

Tchocky, Clintons involvement in prohibiting reinforcements to the embassy and her demand that no security measures worth the name are to be run there, has been reported already months ago.

Since none of the buildings was an embassy what difference does reinforcements to an embassy make?
Since the consulate was stripped of staff it doesn't merit extra security to staff and as the "annex" has no official standing it isn't the State Deps. job to provide security for it.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Obama.

Not Mr. Obama.

Correct name is Mr. Buticannot.



===

In the end about the very old stories you listed, may they be however they have been, we cannot do anything anymore. But the Benghazi issue is still up-to-date and must be adressed, because the one person responsible for it wants to become the next president. That is what gives this story a greater interest, a present validity currently, than some embassy attack ten years ago. I shreddered Bush, Wolfowitz and Cheney and Rumsfeld. Now its time to annoy Clinton, and Buticannot.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

It's disgusting that the GOP is parading the corpses of these four Americans around for purely political purposes. They don't give two craps about them because they're dead Americans. They care about them because they can be used to attack Obama.

Dems are parading as well. But, it is not the dead bodies that are paraded. It is the lies, deception and self-serving demonstrated at the highest level of government in question.

[mookiemookie]

If you consider politicians lying to be a scandal, then that's a grand and intoxicating innocence. I guess we can update the old Bush-era liberal bumper sticker: "No one died when Susan Rice lied"

[Gerald]

@Thanks Jim for link update

[Jimbuna]

No problem