« | »

Feinstein To Probe, But Knows WH Not Involved

From the New York Times:

Feinstein Says Senate Will Investigate Benghazi ‘Talking Points’

By BRIAN KNOWLTON | November 18, 2012

The chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee said Sunday that she planned to investigate why the C.I.A.’s quick determination of a terrorist role in the Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi, Libya, was not reflected in the “talking points” used days later on television by Susan E. Rice, the ambassador to the United Nations.

But the chairwoman, Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, also said she felt certain that the White House was not behind any change in the language used. “With the allegation that the White House changed those talking points, that is false,” she said on the NBC program “Meet the Press.”

Sen. Feinstein feels "certain" the White House was not behind any change in the language used. So she is going to chair an investigation into something about which she has already made up her mind?

The White House, she said, had changed a reference to the “consulate” in Benghazi to the more accurate “mission.” “That’s the only change that anyone in the White House made, and I have checked this out,” Ms. Feinstein said.

Okay, then, that’s settled. Nobody could pull the wool over Ms. Feinstein’s eyes. (Except constantly.)

She said a transcript of testimony given a day after the attack by David H. Petraeus, who was then director of the C.I.A., showed that “Petraeus very clearly said that it was a terrorist attack.”

So now there is a transcript. So let’s see it. — And why haven’t we heard about it before?

And, more importantly, why did Obama and Mrs. Clinton and other top administration officials insist that there was no evidence of terrorist involvement?

But asked whether President Obama or anyone working for him had deliberately misled the public by characterizing the attack as resulting from a spontaneous protest – to avoid invoking a terrorist threat at a key point in the presidential campaign – she was adamant, saying, “No, no.” …

You see what an open mind she has on this? You couldn’t ask for a more unbiased person to carry out the investigation.

Representative Mike Rogers, the Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said that the talking points were amended during a review by an interdepartmental “deputies committee,” which he described as being “populated by appointees from the administration.”

For the record, the National Security Council Deputies Committee includes the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and the Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs.

“We do know that the intelligence community, as they presented it, was accurate, and it did include terrorism,” Mr. Rogers, of Michigan, said on “Meet the Press.” …


Ms. Feinstein said that Ms. Rice, in five television appearances on Sept. 16, had carefully followed the talking points. Ms. Feinstein made quite clear her displeasure that as a result of doing so, Ms. Rice has been roundly criticized by some Republican senators.

“I have read every one of the five interviews she did that day,” Ms. Feinstein said. “She was within the context of that statement, and for this, she has been pilloried for two months. “I don’t understand it. It has to stop.”

There is so much Ms. Feinstein doesn’t understand. Including the fact that Rice is merely the face of the Obama administration here. And as such she is being "pilloried" for lying to the American people in order to get Obama re-elected.

Meanwhile, we have this ‘fact check’ from the Washington Post:

Did the Obama administration know its Libya protest talk was inaccurate?

By Josh Hicks | November 18, 2012

“It was clear that the State Department was able to witness this in real time. There is no indication that there was a mob. There is no indication that a video was the genesis of this. Why did the administration, for weeks, mislead the American people?

“They knew because they testified in the hearing we had before the election that they were witnessing this in real time and that all of those indications were that this was a very orchestrated, very sophisticated attack on the compound that went on for hours and hours and hours.”

— Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) during interview on MSNBC, Nov. 14, 2012…

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) insisted during an MSNBC interview that the administration knew all along that no demonstration took place near the compound. He also said the comments made by Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Charlene Lamb during her testimony before the House Oversight Committee proved “they were witnessing this in real time.”

Let’s take a look at Lamb’s testimony and review what happened in Benghazi to determine whether the congressman jumped to any conclusions…

The Post has a dozen paragraphs to try to muddy the waters. But here is the sworn Congressional testimony of the State Department’s Deputy Assistant Security for Security, Charlene Lamb:

"When the attack began, a Diplomatic Security agent working in the Tactical Operations Center immediately activated the Imminent Danger Notification System and made an emergency announcement over the PA. Based on our security protocols, he also alerted the annex U.S. quick reaction security team stationed nearby, the Libyan 17th February Brigade, Embassy Tripoli, and the Diplomatic Security Command Center in Washington. From that point on, I could follow what was happening in almost real-time."

So Chaffetz had it right, no matter what the Post claims.

The Pinocchio Test

Chaffetz’s MSNBC comments suggest he has a slam-dunk case proving a cover-up against the Obama administration. What he really has are a lot of questions for the president, who promised during his first post-election news conference to be forthcoming with information about the Benghazi attack — we’ll see how well he sticks to that pledge.

What a laugh. Obama promised to be forthcoming about information since the day after the attack. How much more time is he going to be given by these ‘fact checkers’?

Obama has lied to the dead men’s families, to the American people and even to the UN.

The Benghazi hearings and investigations could potentially prove Chaffetz right, but the congressman has no conclusive evidence yet that the Obama administration misled the public or knew right away that the assault had little or nothing to do with protests over an anti-Islam video.

Except that they administration was watching the attacks unfold, and they had reports from the people on the ground, including the CIA’s bureau chief. They either chose to ignore all of this, or they are lying about how in the dark they were. At the very least they these attacks were not the result of spontaneous protests over the video, and that terrorists were involved.

But in any case, by putting the blame on the video the Obama administration clearly misled the public. And it is very easy to see why. They want to get all of this past the elections.

He earns two Pinocchios for suggesting he knows for sure what the administration knew about the Sept. 11 attack.

Two Pinocchios

This is as laughable as the usual Washington Post fact checks. In this case, they give Rep Jason Cheffetz (R-UT) "Two Pinocchios." for simply stating what are obvious truths. Meanwhile, they only gave Ambassador Rice "Two Pinocchios" for her repetition of her outrageous lies about Benghazi being due to a video.

But this is what passes for fact checking at the Washington Post.

This article was posted by Steve on Monday, November 19th, 2012. Comments are currently closed.

7 Responses to “Feinstein To Probe, But Knows WH Not Involved”

  1. GetBackJack says:

    (running around the ranch, screaming)

    They’ve all lost their freaking minds!

    WTH are we doing yacking about finger pointing when what we should be doing is screaming for Hillary’s head on a pike for refusing <b<our Benghazi consulate armed, serious, marine protection in a n Islamic war zone, a war zone SHE CREATED!!

    Holy God, I’ve lived long enough to be the one eyed man in the land of the blind ….

    (resumes running around with my hair on fire)

  2. Tater Salad says:

    Feinstein tries to look neutral but she is your typical left wing smear merchant that will protect her Ruler of Amerika at all costs. Remember, she is from California, one strike and the other is that she knows Charles Manson from years ago! She will put on a great show but in the end she will impede the investigation to cover for The President.

  3. Petronius says:

    “I don’t understand it. It has to stop,” Ms. Feinstein says.

    You have to be impressed by her audacity and the volume of lies.

    And how they just can’t help themselves––how they just can’t stop lying.

    And so the old pack of lies spawn new lies and new liars . . . which in turn breed more lies and more liars . . . which cascade like an atomic reaction into successive, unending, fantastic, future lies and liars ad infinitum.

    “It has to stop!” Ms Feinstein says.

    Yes, but they can’t stop. Not ever. Least of all Ms. Feinstein. No, nothing can stop the charade, the delirium, the insanity, the sheer madness.

    And so we watch in horrified fascination as the stream of lies from Nerobama becomes a river of lies, and as the river swells into a raging torrent, and finally into an ocean, encompassing the entire White House, several departments and agencies, the interdepartmental deputies committee, the talking points, the amended talking points, the amendments to the amended talking points, Susan Rice, the Sunday talk shows, Hillary, the return of the bodies, Jumpin’ Joe Biden and the phony goings-on at Andrews AFB, the grieving families, the innocent Coptic Christian imprisoned in California, Panetta, the generals, the mistresses, the intelligence agencies, the counter-intelligence agencies, the shirtless FBI agent, the sex-crazed Secret Servicemen, the debates, the non-debates, the oversight committees, the transcripts, the non-transcripts, the Kyle Clark interview, Feinstein, the entire Capitol, the Washington Post, the fact-checkers, the Pinocchios, the network talking heads, the unasked questions and the non-answers, the hundreds of little mouths moving and saying nothing, the op-eds, the rest of the State-owned media, and all of his caponized adherents, minions, underlings, cover-up artists, janitors, and clean-up crew, both documented and undocumented.

    Such a spectacle!

    And Benghazi is just the tip of the iceberg of lies.

    From ancient Rome to the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea, nothing could compare to it.


    • freedomfan says:

      Excellent comment and reaction (from Petronius) to this madness and chaos. My wife tells my I now have to stop being so bleak, post-election. Um, ok…, but this obviously ain’t easy when things like ‘objective reality’ no longer seem to matter to the ruling class and their lemmings. If there was another continent to discover or even (I swear) another habitable planet we could get to, me and my bunch would be gone…

  4. Rusty Shackleford says:

    Feinstein Probes AGW

    “Certain” it exists but is investigating talking points to see if it really does.

    See how that works?

    Predisposed to an idea, convinced it is fact. You know, like the mid-century Nazis who were convinced that “Der Juden” were an inferior race (who somehow managed to dupe the German nation into being broke) and used “evidence”, carefully crafted “evidence” to prove it. I saw the movies….read the ‘scientific’ papers. Long, sloping foreheads, large noses, close-set beady eyes.


    Feinstein proves that prejudice is a human failing in many areas. When a person has convinced themselves of a thing, no amount of factual proof will convince them otherwise. For one thing, she has to make sure her ‘credibility’ with the party is upheld, first and foremost. Therefore, she has to go through the motions of appearing diligent, obsessed with the ‘truth’ and will thus find it.

    It’s all theater. It’s all show. The pea. Can you find the pea?

  5. canary says:

    Senator Feinstein interviewing how Petraeus taking his uniform off led to adulterous affair, insults Petraeus’s wife to blame guessing she made the general wash dishes at home.

    Reuters _ Senator Muses about Petraeus’ Life out of Uniform

    Nov 18, 2012

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) –

    “You see the medals he has, you see the stars. One day he takes all of that off. He’s in a plain blue suit. … There’s no entourage. There’s no driver. He gives an order at the CIA, there’s discussion, there’s flak … and then he goes home to wash dishes,” U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein said on NBC’ “Meet the Press.”

    The interviewer cautioned Feinstein that she was close to giving the former top commander in Afghanistan a “men behaving badly” defense.


    When Obama wrote of his indigence that no Senator should be asked by his wife to get ant- spray on his way home, you have to wonder how many butt wipers and brands of tissue paper he’s gone through.

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      Feinstein carries all the characteristics of a woman who never did very well with the guys. Let’s face it, one of the roots of the feminist movement is their jealousy of the hot chicks getting all the perks in life. The cool jobs, the attention, the guys. So, that would definitely explain their hatred of pornography, and, by definition, its explosion in the liberal world.

      At the base root of human behavior there’s something that cannot be shut off by political activism and that’s instinct. Men gravitate to women who have the looks and physique that make them better/stronger child bearers. Women are attracted to men who will be better providers, defenders of the family and home. No matter what the uber-intellectuals like Blabbermouth Shulz says, it cannot be ignored.

      Feinstein’s little whine is more revealing of her hatred of women who are attractive than anything else. She looks like about five miles of bad road anyhow and she knows it. This is also the root of why women on the left crucified the women that president BJ went after. In the little girl’s room, there’s an untold truth that everyone knows….the all hate the chick who gets all the attention. The janitors used to tell me that the graffiti on the girls’ bathroom walls were far more hateful and explicit than anything in the boys’ room and I’m told that’s still the case.

      In the competitive world of reproduction, women are ruthless, have no borders and often no class. Their desire for control over others is as thick as glue. Ever see what happens when a new girl moves into town and all the men notice? All of a sudden the rumors about her start flying, usually started by someone like Feinstein.

      I’m not excusing Petraeus but when stuff like this happens, the vitriol against the female who is the center of attention is endless and women like Feinstein use it to strengthen their power-base, such as it is.

      It is especially noticeable in bull-dyke lesbians who wear flannel shirts and workboots. Their first instinct is to want to beat up the hot chick. For some reason this type of human-being is especially dysfunctional. They often exhibit a high degree of self-loathing that manifests itself in being rude to others in curious ways.

      But, still….here we are in the 21st century where being normal is a crime.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »