Release of Benghazi Emails Point to State Department as the Culprit

            

           
             Republicans have demanded the Benghazi emails be released to the public for months, and today, their demands were finally answered.   I admittedly once thought that the deep concern shown by Republicans was unwarranted, and it was only a continuation of their stanch desire to discredit the current administration, but after commencing my own research into the matter and actually reading the emails for myself, I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that there was indeed, a flag on the play. 
 

Read the Benghazi emails here

From my understanding, the function of the State Department is to handle America’s foreign affairs in a way that benefits and protects its citizens.  It is not the function of the State Department; however, to mislead the American people only in order to prevent their  own unwelcomed scrutiny.

In "a draft note to the DIRECTOR," intelligence officials appear to have identified the State Department as driving the changes to the CIA's drafts. "The White House cleared quickly, but State has major concerns," an official, whose name was redacted, wrote.    The White House claims to have only made stylistic and rudimentary changes to the talking points.

The early versions of the talking points, drafted entirely by the CIA, included references to the al Qaeda affiliate Ansar al-Sharia and to previous CIA warnings about terror threats in Benghazi. State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland expressed concerns about including those references in the talking points.

In one email, previously reported by ABC News, Nuland said that including the CIA warnings "could be used by Members [of Congress] to beat the State Department for not paying attention to Agency warnings so why do we want to feed that? “

A senior administration official said that Deputy CIA Director Mike Morrell agreed with Nuland's concerns and made the changes himself, but there exists no email record showing that Morrell shared Nuland's concerns.

There are a total of 12 versions of the talking points in all.  Extensive revisions were made, most substantially by the State Department, and important information was removed.  What did get removed was the CIA's saying that it believed Ansar al-Sharia took part in the attack and that the CIA had warned of the terror threat.

The recent release of these emails creates a more insightful understanding of the discussion between federal departments, the intelligence community and the White House about Benghazi. Throughout the drafting process, intelligence officials had included the idea that the Benghazi attack was spawned by a spontaneous demonstration.

In conclusion, it seems that the State Department used their authority in an inappropriate way.  They decided to change or omit information in the talking points addressed to the American people by the CIA for the purpose of protecting themselves, and their personal objectives, not the American people.  I believe this to be wrong. If the State Department disagreed with the CIA, fine, but choosing only to allow information that strictly holds them in their preferable hue is unacceptable. 

What do you think about the State Department’s handling of the CIA talking points? 



Rush Limbaugh in Risk of Losing Show

Could this actually be the great and terrifying reign of Rush Limbaugh finally coming to an end?  Mr. Limbaugh has reportedly been in an ongoing struggle with parent company, Cumulus Media, over the deep decline of advertisers bidding to advertise during his show.  This decline, according to Cumulus CEO Lew Dickey‘s public comments is due to the controversial conservative radio personality’s  startling 2012 “slut” comments about Georgetown student Sandra Fluke.   Mr. Limbaugh’s slip of judgment is reportedly costing the organization millions.

I must say; however, that I don’t believe Rush is going anywhere anytime soon, and if he does, it won’t be outside of earshot.  Rush Limbaugh is the most listened to person in radio, and you don’t have to like him, but as long as his show is bringing in the dollars, he will be heard.   I still feel good talking about this though because Mr. Limbaugh is indeed a dangerous man.

I for one understand Mr. Limbaugh’s immense strength in the art of persuasion and am admittedly fond of his witty commentary and uniquely unsettling style.  As a sales manager I had to do a great deal of traveling on a daily basis and I would listen to Rush Limbaugh and Al Sharpton to sort of get a taste of both worlds.  Both are extremely ostentatious characters in their own ways, but I have to admit that Mr. Limbaugh takes the cake.  He is truly a profound source of entertainment.

With that being said; however, and with all entertainment aside, Rush Limbaugh is a nasty person who prides himself on delivering lie after lie to the American People.   The quicker his show is off the air, the better.  Now I am in no way, shape or form, about the business of silencing voices that I disagree with because as I said I enjoy the discourse, but I do not see the significance or actually I should say that I do see the detriment in allowing a radio personality of Mr. Limbaugh’s enormous public stature to spew lies into the psyches of so many impressionable Americans as they drive home in their cars and on a daily basis.  I have personally heard Rush Limbaugh, on several different occasions, tell incredible lies on a show that masquerades as news.   For example, in 2012 President Obama moved his democratic nomination speech from an outside football stadium to an inside arena due to bad weather (it was raining with thunderstorm watches and warnings throughout the area).  Mr. Limbaugh proceeded to tell his listeners that there was no bad weather, and that President Obama had moved the speech because he could in no way fill up an entire football stadium.  He went on to say that President Obama had committed similar actions on separate occasions.

Let me be clear, I find nothing wrong with clever rhetoric, but I do take issue with blatant lies. Talent is no excuse for irresponsibility and purposely delivering nonsense and calling it news.  Call it what it is: Comedy Central and then everyone can take the show for the joke that it really is rather than actually giving it the credence and respect of real news.   I think Mr. Limbaugh should retire, go out on top and take everyone that thinks like him with him.  It’s time for a new day and age, a time for hope, not hate speech.

What do you think about Rush Limbaugh potentially losing his show?  Does it surprise you that he is the most listened to person in radio?