Archived material Access restricted Article

Today's Front Page   View All of Sun 11/18/2012 View Sat 11/17/2012 View Fri 11/16/2012 View Thu 11/15/2012 View Wed 11/14/2012 View Tue 11/13/2012 View Mon 11/12/2012
2012-11-18 Africa North
White House Denies Heavy Editing of Benghazi Memo
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Fred 2012-11-18 00:00|| E-Mail|| Front Page|| [503 views ]  Top

#1 Appears General pants-down and his former Kinglon employer have once again been posted to the center of the circular firing squad.

The obvious question for Ben Rhodes is now: Ok so you saw the Kingon original product but didn't make "heavy edits"... did you and POTUS approve the final product ?
Posted by Besoeker 2012-11-18 05:28||   2012-11-18 05:28|| Front Page Top

#2 I sense the presence of the ghost RoseMary Woods.

I blame Nixon.
Posted by Shipman 2012-11-18 05:34||   2012-11-18 05:34|| Front Page Top

#3 Heavy and Critical are different words.
Posted by Procopius2k 2012-11-18 10:39||   2012-11-18 10:39|| Front Page Top

#4 I'm not all that keen on early analysis, but Benghazi is beginning to resemble the Pueblo and Liberty incidents. Namely, an intelligence agency asset (an AGI or a intelligence facility) is nominally placed under the auspices of another agency or department (the Navy or State), said asset gets attacked, the asset is left to fend for itself,

That's because neither the intelligence agency that owns it, and especially the agency or department (the Navy or State) that that has nominal control over the asset, wishes to involve itself with it. Part of it is a reluctance to exposing one's position (both), part of it is a turf-war between the operating agency (CIA) and the nominal owner (Navy or State) about spending funds on what is viewed as a bastard project. In the case of the nominal owner (Navy or State), there is still a severe distaste remaining from one's department getting talked into or coerced into taking nominal control.
Posted by Pappy 2012-11-18 13:12||   2012-11-18 13:12|| Front Page Top

#5 Excellent assessment per usual. When all else fails, follow the money... or the lack thereof. No love lost btwn these agencies is an understatement (DoD not excluded)

Cynical old bastid that I am, I'm still leaning toward some rather unseemly, weapons smuggling and/or rendition type activities. BTW, the 28th of November will mark the 20th anniversary of Iran-Contra.
Posted by Besoeker 2012-11-18 13:37||   2012-11-18 13:37|| Front Page Top

#6 I have heard that the denial is a wonderfull parsing of words (a la Bill Clinton). The change was not made at the White House, but it WAS made by Obama's campaign staff in Chicago. They changed it for political purposes.

They should not have even seen the document (they did not have clearance), and they certainly should not have edited it. The denials and cover up are to hide the fact that Obama and his campaign broke the law by improperly handling classified documents.

The real scandals of Benghazi are:
1) We have a POTUS who hates his own country.
2) He allows his campaign staff to set national security policy.
Posted by Frozen Al 2012-11-18 16:54||   2012-11-18 16:54|| Front Page Top

23:16 SteveS
23:09 JosephMendiola
23:02 JosephMendiola
22:55 Alaska Paul
22:50 JosephMendiola
22:35 Thing From Snowy Mountain
22:30 JosephMendiola
22:22 JosephMendiola
22:18 Silentbrick - Schlumberger Icky French Program Division
22:16 Silentbrick - Schlumberger Icky French Program Division
22:10 Redneck Jim
22:03 Barbara
21:58 trailing wife
21:50 trailing wife
21:49 Pappy
21:41 trailing wife
21:32 SteveS
19:53 Frank G
19:44 Pumper
19:37 Pumper
19:34 Pumper
19:33 JosephMendiola
19:32 Pumper
19:26 Charles

Search WWW Search