"The original talking points were much more specific about Al Qaeda involvement. And yet the final ones just said indications of extremists," King said, adding that the final version was the product of a vague "inter-agency process."...
Lawmakers are focusing on the talking points in the first place because of concern over the account Rice gave on five Sunday shows on Sept. 16, when she repeatedly claimed the attack was spontaneous -- Rice's defenders have since insisted she was merely basing her statements on the intelligence at the time.
November 16, 2012
Who changed the CIA's Benghazi talking points?
The question emerges from Petraeus's testimony today:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
94 comments:
David Axelrod or Valerie Jarrett.
Disagreement on the issue is very partisan.
Sad.
Not sure why someone/anyone would allow Rice to solely go with the idea it was based the reaction to the movie.
It doesn't benefit anyone, organized terrorist attacks will happen despite best efforts. Even if there were violent protests over the film possibly there and in other parts of the world, why hide/diminished the the organized attack piece to the American public?
organized terrorist attacks will happen despite best efforts It didn't match the campaign agenda. Simple as that. They kicked the can down the road, the media played along, Nov 6 happened. They'll be some grease spots under the bus but its done.
We'll have to start pumping people for information until we get to the bottom of this. Ms. Broadwell, you start with the CIA. Ms. Kelley, you take the FBI.
Tampa socialite and military booster Jill Kelley and her sister Natalie Khawam — figures at the center of the David Petraeus scandal — were cleared into the White House complex three times this year, most recently last week, for what are described as tourist visits facilitated by a mid-level White House staffer.
On Nov. 4, just two days before the election, Kelley, her husband Scott, and three children, plus Khawam and her child, all visited the White House for a tour hosted by the staffer, an administration official told ABC News.
The sisters first visited on Sept. 28, joining the staffer for breakfast in the White House mess. On Oct. 24, the duo made a second visit for lunch with the staffer in the mess, the official said.
Neither Kelley nor Khawam met with the President or any other senior administration officials on their visits, sources said. They were present only for a “tour” and “courtesy meals.” (President Obama and his senior aides were out of Washington, barnstorming the battleground states on Oct. 24 and Nov. 4.)
Two weeks ago, firing Obama meant giving the job to Romney. Now, firing Obama means giving the job to Biden.
The administration, and its Pravda functionaries, did enough to prevent the former. The latter is so unthinkably bad that Benghazi can now be safely investigated.
Is anyone else reminded of the time Bill Clinton sent a bunch of his cabinet members and others out to say that they believed him when he told them there was no truth to those rumors about him? And remember how no one resigned? Is there ANYONE left in Washington with any dignity and self-respect?
The FBI agent who started the investigation of Petraeus and Broadwell was the one whose investigation stopped Ahmed Ressam from bombing LAX in December 1999.
McTriumph:
It's hard to believe anything right now, isn't it?
Dante
Welcome to Nixonland.
At the time of the Libyan "war of liberation" there were mutterings out in the weeds that the whole thing was cooked up by Hillary!, Susan Rice, and Samantha Power.
I do not remember reading about any reason why, but Libya is a major oil producer for Europe.
Is Hillary! still in Australia?
I'd guess it was Axelrod.
One MSNBC commentator compared Obama's indignation to the fictional president in "The American President", but that president was defending his girlfriend and for the comparison to be accurate...
Well, then the only conclusion one could make is that they lied either way. They lied in changing the talking points in taking out that it was a terrorist attack in the face that it was. Even if it took them a week to figure out that it was a terrorist attack, they still continued to lie about it afterward. Where in any of this is their plausible deniability? I don't see it and they have painted themselves into a corner. This thing is starting to unravel.
Scapegoating Rice as a regime dupe who was reading a script and for that long only makes her even more unqualified to be SoS because she is nothing more than Bagdhad Bob at this point.
The disgusting thing about Clinton's cabinet going in front of cameras to defend him was that he made sure the female members were front and center doing the defending. If that doesn't develop a sense of self-loathing within the party, I don't know what would.
All sorts of female "leaders" of assorted groups performed similar service in defense of Clinton, I'm sure they got over their sense of disgust with the knowledge they would be repaid in full.
I know what happened...
Ambassador Joe Wilson went on a mission to Benghazi... and we never heard from him again.
The only reason Rice was out there in defense was because she had no involvement or knowledge of Benghazi and they wanted to start to increase her image so they could nominate her for Sec State.
I am more concerned about why reinforcements were not immediately sent in. Were Americans left to die? Why couldn't/didn't we get the people on the ground help? Who cares about the talking points......
Is anyone else reminded of the time Bill Clinton sent a bunch of his cabinet members and others out to say that they believed him when he told them there was no truth to those rumors about him?
Even his wife Hillary just blamed it all on a vast right-wing conspiracy. We vast right-wing conspiracists are still waiting for an apology.
Is anyone else reminded of the time Bill Clinton sent a bunch of his cabinet members and others out to say that they believed him when he told them there was no truth to those rumors about him?
Even his wife Hillary just blamed it all on a vast right-wing conspiracy. We vast right-wing conspiracists are still waiting for an apology.
Why do they keep referring to "unclassified" talking points? Are there "classified" talking points?
What I want to know is who makes a better yellow cake?
Susan Rice or Condoleezza Rice... or as Bush 43 calls her... Condi.
Remind us again, Ann, why this is important?
As Rush points out, Susan Rice went to five different Sunday talking-head shows to deliver a single message as prescribed by the Obama regime. Because the shows were telecast in a tight timeline, special arrangements would have had to be made by the regime to have her remarks recorded in advance at each network. Obama said "Jump!" - networks said, "How high?"
Fox pointed out that Hillary Clinton, General Petraeus, Leon Panetta and several other ranking cabinet members were available to traipse among the lowly network folks - but Obama wanted to get Susan Rice's face in front of the television cameras since she is destined to be nominated as SecState.
Not sure why someone/anyone would allow Condoleeza Rice to solely go with the idea it was based on the....
no wait..nevermind...
Even his wife Hillary just blamed it all on a vast right-wing conspiracy.
A vast right-wing conspiracy wear a blue cum stained dress. Hillary never cared about Bill's skanks, Arkansas and DC is littered with them. Now he's gone Global.
They sent Sue Rice out because she wasn't privy to the happenings of Benghazi. She couldn't knowingly lie, she was intentionally lied to, she was pimped.
Lem asked:
What I want to know is who makes a better yellow cake?
Susan Rice or Condoleezza Rice...
Thank you Lem, for putting every thing in its proper perspective. Either Obama or perhaps the Hostess Bakery Union have adopted the slogan, "Let them eat cake!"
@Luke Lea,
it looks like someone in the Obama administration has blood on their hands. (Why did the military not attempt a rescue? The consulate-that-may-have-been-something-else was under observation by a drone, and assets were in the area to help...and nothing happened.)
And someone in the Obama administration coordinated a response which contradicts the testimony Petraus gave. They tried to blame the attack on a mob encited by a YouTube film.
Petraeus agreed with the original story. Now he doesn't.
Feels like Watergate, in that someone is lying about what they knew, and when.
Now this is the second Obama scandal that I have that feeling about. (The first was Operation Fast and Furious, and the changing stories presented about it.)
I am more concerned about why reinforcements were not immediately sent in. Were Americans left to die? Why couldn't/didn't we get the people on the ground help? Who cares about the talking points......
I mostly agree. The "talking points" definitely take a back seat to the degree of effort the administration expended to save the Americans trapped in the firefight. Who gave the Order to stand down, why was there no assistance there in time to make a difference, why was there insufficient security to begin with?
Unlike some, if the Administration faltered, I don't believe that's impeachable, but I do think they need to be called to account. They managed to deflect these questions until after the election, which seems to have been their goal, but the answer to these questions is important.
I do believe that the doctoring of the talking points is also important, because it reflects this administration's dishonesty when it comes to saving its public image. But its behavior during a crisis needs to be scrutinized.
The President could very easily account for his own actions during the attack. That he has thus far failed to do so speaks volumes, and none of it well to him.
I love it when it all comes together.
It is important because we still have no explanation for why and how we were involved in the Libyan war in the first place.
Asking questions about that always have been like shouting into the fog.
Gadfly - Hillary Clinton, General Petraeus, Leon Panetta and several other ranking cabinet members were available to traipse among the lowly network folks - but Obama wanted to get Susan Rice's face in front of the television cameras since she is destined to be nominated as SecState
The alternative is that Panetta, Obama, Hillary, and Petraeus (in this case at least) were too fucking smart to go out and discredit themselves.
Same with all their deputies.
And knowing what Biden is capable of, they sure couldn't send him out doing talking points.
(Fly on the wall fantasy) Axelrod, Plouffe, Obama conferring: Send Rice.
We we make it all better for her after the election. It really isn't a big lie, or especially a criminal lie we have her fronting as a Patsy.
The script and narrative is that Obama has the terrorists defeated, on the run, and reelecting the President justifies any and all tactics - poll rigging, having Susan Rice tatter her reputation. Even a minor break-in or two, if it came to that necessity.
The trolls (3, 2, 1...) say "wait for the investigation."
Yeah.
Because shut up they said.
To me, the bigger questions are who gave the order to the US security forces to stand down and why was that order given. I'm sure it is all related, but the order to stand down was, in my mind anyway, almost a death warrant and is harder to take than a lie about the true nature of the attack.
"The President could very easily account for his own actions during the attack. That he has thus far failed to do so speaks volumes, and none of it well to him."
OJ Simpson had his jury.
Barack Obama has his electorate.
They've spoken.
It does not matter.
The America that made America what it is?
Gone.
Lincoln was a homo,
Jefferson banged his slave,
Yet hint that Rice is not so nice?
That's very very grave.
Looks like Petraeus lied to members of Congress when he briefed them on Sept. 14.
Lem said...
What I want to know is who makes a better yellow cake?
Susan Rice or Condoleezza Rice... or as Bush 43 calls her... Condi.
I'll go with Condi, she probably has more experience with yellow cake, I imagine she had some input into the 550 metric tons shipped out of Iraq in 2008, the last of Saddam's stash.
If you guys remember the press made a big deal out of "16 words" in GWB 2003 SOTU speech... claiming that Bush lied to get us to wage war on Iraq.
Here we are, almost 10 years later... and history seems to be repeating itself.
Except this time, Obama sent Rice to lie and cover up the fact that he didn't wage war in self defence, in defence of the United States... completely disregarding his sworn oath to protect and defend the country against all enemies foreign and domestic.
Whereas Bush may have been aggressive after 9/11/01... Obama was derelict on 9/11/12.
This was a set-up from the word go.
they thought, if Petraeus was forced to resign, they'd just send his deputy, but, once King and DiFi insisted on hearing his story, they had to discredit him.
Nice little detail about those White house visits. God, this thing stinks.
machine said...
Not sure why someone/anyone would allow Condoleeza Rice to solely go with the idea it was based on the....
no wait..nevermind...
Oh, say it.
It isn't racist or sexist if she's Republican.
Colin Durham said...
I am more concerned about why reinforcements were not immediately sent in. Were Americans left to die? Why couldn't/didn't we get the people on the ground help? Who cares about the talking points......
Me too. This is just a distraction from those four bodies stinkin' up the place.
The America that made America what it is?
Gone.
In my near eternal optimism, I do not believe it's all gone. I still know and meet plenty of people who are willing to work to provide for themselves and their families. You can't keep these people down, even though the government keeps trying.
@Luke Lea: Remind us again, Ann, why this is important?
I do believe Luke wore The Smirk™ as he typed that. Today’s task assigned him by Thread Warden leslyn.
(sarc on) We are all so dumb! Why didn't we think of this? (sarc off)
“Updated: leaks from the Benghazi hearing say CIA cut out mentions of terror groups so as not to tip them off: http://t.co/T07CNkFu”
PS somewhere, Douglas MacArthur is smiling.
carrie said...
To me, the bigger questions are who gave the order to the US security forces to stand down and why was that order given. I'm sure it is all related, but the order to stand down was, in my mind anyway, almost a death warrant and is harder to take than a lie about the true nature of the attack.
There is some attempted sleight of hand going on here.
Obama's constitutional job 1 is to be the commander in chief... to defend the nation.
We were attacked on 9/11/12 and Obama dithered.
McTriumph said...
They sent Sue Rice out because she wasn't privy to the happenings of Benghazi. She couldn't knowingly lie, she was intentionally lied to, she was pimped.
Then she was a useful idiot. It happened on 9/11. The consulate was shelled by mortars. Not a spontaneous riot. Even distanced, casual observers suspected that. A person with Rice's proximity to POTUS would have asked before going public with incorrect information.
Rice looks like a stooge. Ask her today or tomorrow about her certainty then and see if she passes the buck back to where it should but never stops.
Who changed the TP's?
In the clown car that is the Obama administration, does it really matter?
The order to stand down could only come from the Commander In Chief.
"The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam."
Everything, EVERYTHING follows from that statement.
Lem said...
Obama's constitutional job 1 is to be the commander in chief... to defend the nation.
We were attacked on 9/11/12 and Obama dithered.
No, he hung those guys out to dry because the truth wouldn't look so good politically.
It may not be treason, but it sure as Hell is impeachable.
PS Notice how the last 2 Demo POTI are impeachable sociopaths?
This is one of the most depressing stores, mainly because it never ends. First, there was the attack itself, which gave us those awful images of the dead ambassador. The sense of powerlessness and the visceral disgust were overwhelming. Then the administration lied to the country and attempted to scapegoat a relatively minor, if disreputable, character. Then the media carried water for the administration.
Now the sordid Petraeus affair is unfolding before our eyes. Benghazi is suddenly interesting to some, now that the president is safely reelected and the story is a powerful man engaging in immoral sex. Stories continue to change. The situation is fluid. Or something.
Nothing will come of this. Somehow the story will become that Republicans are dishonest prudes who are only asking questions because they hate the president and are obsessed with the sex lives of others.
Wo changed the talking points is oly the first question. Then, who didn't give the call to send someone to the embassy. Then, wo didn't provide the embassy with the requested security?
Since Patreus has resigned and Rice is pretty good at repeating CIA points, my vote for her to be the next CIA chief. The situation will be rich with irony.
And where are all the people Doherty and Woods saved?
Were they Company, too?
Love to hear from them.
BDNYC - I think the scenario you played out will be the standard for the rest of the Obama administration. It is depressing.
gadfly said...
(sarc on) We are all so dumb! Why didn't we think of this? (sarc off)
“Updated: leaks from the Benghazi hearing say CIA cut out mentions of terror groups so as not to tip them off.
It all makes sense now, the terrorist were so stoned on Libyan Gold hashish they didn't know they they had attacked the consulate
or is them us?
I think it was the State Dept., not the CIA.
and Susan Rice is a State Dept. employee, I believe.
Lets talk about the real question- has Althouse ever explained that 3 hour gap in her live-blogging on election night?
McTriumph said...
Lem said...
What I want to know is who makes a better yellow cake?
Susan Rice or Condoleezza Rice... or as Bush 43 calls her... Condi.
I'll go with Condi, she probably has more experience with yellow cake, I imagine she had some input into the 550 metric tons shipped out of Iraq in 2008, the last of Saddam's stash.
Actually. After the fighting, about two years in, the Army uncovered a warehouse with another 500 metric tons in barrels.
Ole Saddam was was fixin to cook hisself up some U235 an shit.
Don't forget that mysterious "explosion" in Syria when the Israelis blew that lab.
Dovetails nicely with the stories that some of his stuff was trucked out by the Russkies.
Rusty
We might be talking about the same 550 metric tons found 12 miles south of Baghdad. It was ship out in 2008 and sold to a Canadian uranium processing company.
"In my near eternal optimism, I do not believe it's all gone. I still know and meet plenty of people who are willing to work to provide for themselves and their families. You can't keep these people down, even though the government keeps trying."
I admire your optimism and, honest to God, I pray you are right.
Out here in California, it seems like a lifetime ago.
That isn't to say it is all gone, but rather to say, it is sufficiently gone to to have, in all practical effect, no effect whatsoever.
At least here in California.
But, should yo be wrong and my fears correct, those who will suffer the most are those most responsible for making it happen.
Their abilities to fend for themselves in this brave new world of theirs can be seen in ongoing failure of emergency response to Sandy in Staten Island.
Not so good.
BDNYC wrote:
nothing will come of this. Somehow the story will become that Republicans are dishonest prudes who are only asking questions because they hate the president and are obsessed with the sex lives of others.
and don't forget, are critical and sexist for daring to ask about the admins response.
Followed by, "We're you lying in your previous statement, or are you lying now?"
Is that how John Dean's testimony got thoroughly discredited?
Lem
Whereas Bush may have been aggressive after 9/11/01... Obama was derelict on 9/11/12.
You are truly living in your own reality. How can anyone have a conversation with you when you ignore all the shit from the Bush years but then pivot and aggresively seek the truth with Obama in the WH? Be honest some of the time.
This:
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.
If the CIA and the ingellegence community approved the talking points it's not really someone in Rice's position would ignore. The only real question is who approved the talking points? I think that is a legit question. But that is not Rice's fault.
How can anyone have a conversation with you when you ignore all the shit from the Bush years but then pivot and aggresively seek the truth with Obama in the WH? Be honest some of the time.
I can sense Lem's heartbreak at the loss of many illuminating conversations with you.
Lem's a good guy. Give him a chance.
How about this? Right after we find out what happened in the whole Benghazi mess, we'll look into this Bush fellow you speak of.
Chip S
I can agree with some of that. Hearings are important. But pointing fingers at the admininstration out of partisan politics is not the way to do it.
Interesting take on Romney by John Podhoretz:
"His vision of a better America than Obama’s was one that rewarded success rather than penalized it and gave running room to entrepreneurs to realize the American dream.
But such a vision isn’t actually inclusive. It speaks to those whose energies will likely make them successes no matter what they do — and says little to people who don’t think of life in such dynamic terms.
Many people crave security and stability rather than risk-taking, and that doesn’t make them any less American. They are the workers rather than the job creators, and all societies need both.
Romney is right that the Obama vision is too centered on government. But his is too centered on the promotion of business and wealth creation at the expense of everything else.
The American dream, as Jindal said, is achieved just as readily by a person who moves from poverty into the middle class as it is by someone who builds a small business. Indeed, that social mobility is probably more reflective of the enduring nature of the American dream than an individual burst of creative success."
Romney's message understandably resonated very strongly with small business owners and entrepreneurs of various stripes. This speaks to why he did not resonate with everyone else. Although I think Romney was generally a very strong candidate and that it was Republican policies that largely sank the campaign, along with memories of Bush, this captures his main weakness as a political candidate.
To: All Althouse lib comment providers
From: leslyn, Thread Warden
Subject: Meme Shift action memo
-----------------------------------
Cons pushing “Who changed talking points memo after Petraeus signed off ?”
We now push “Did Petraeus lie today or on September 14?”
Forward!
"But pointing fingers at the admininstration out of partisan politics is not the way to do it."
Wrote the person who moments before typed. "How can anyone have a conversation with you when you ignore all the shit from the Bush years...."
Right......
If the CIA and the ingellegence community approved the talking points it's not really someone in Rice's position would ignore. The only real question is who approved the talking points? I think that is a legit question. But that is not Rice's fault.
Is anything ever the fault of anybody in the Obama adminstration?
With due respect you guys talked yourselves into a line of bullshit so that you could believe the absolute worst of the President, because you wanted to, because it fit your narrative. IMO it's better to withhold your judgement and wait for the facts before you start accusing people, even your enemies, of flat-out lying.
It takes character to treat even your enemies fairly.
Hearings are important. But pointing fingers at the admininstration out of partisan politics is not the way to do it.
This isn't a partisan issue, both sides of the aisle should be demanding answers about Benghazi. The more information that comes out, the worse it looks.
B.S., phx,
Whoever messed up the "talking points" he/she/it/they were high-ranking member(s) of his administration, and so the President isresponsible for them.
As for Rice, she had seen the "classified" version, and she knew that what she was giving us on the Sunday gasbag shows was a baldfaced lie.
Especially when combined with the earlier intelligence leaks by the administration prior to the election.
"One source told Fox News that Petraeus "has no idea what was provided" to Rice or who was the author of the talking points she used.
He had no idea she was going on talk shows" until the White House announced it one or two days before, the source said."
This, along with his inability to keep his affair secret, and I'm getting the idea that General P just wasn't cut out for the spyin' biz.
Maybe why he was picked in the first place.
He was and is a soldier; the legendary soldier-spy types (Lawrence) are the guys who don't fit in.
That's not Petraeus.
phx - What are you talking about?
Read the link Ann provides.
hint:
Former CIA Director David Petraeus stoked the controversy over the Obama administration's handling of the Libya terror attack, testifying Friday that references to "Al Qaeda involvement" were stripped from his agency's original talking points -- while other intelligence officials were unable to say who changed the memo, according to a top lawmaker who was briefed.
Team Obama lied.
Even Althouse's source, Peter King, says that Petraeus said otherwise two months ago.
*fingers in ears*
Tra la la la. I can't hear you!~
Off topic, but there’s some fascinating stuff on Susan Rice by Dana Milbank over at the Washington Post:
Even in a town that rewards sharp elbows and brusque personalities, Rice has managed to make an impressive array of enemies — on Capitol Hill, in Foggy Bottom and abroad. Particularly in comparison with the other person often mentioned for the job, Sen. John Kerry, she can be a most undiplomatic diplomat, and there likely aren’t enough Republican or Democratic votes in the Senate to confirm her.
Back when she was an assistant secretary of state during the Clinton administration, she appalled colleagues by flipping her middle finger at Richard Holbrooke during a meeting with senior staff at the State Department, according to witnesses. Colleagues talk of shouting matches and insults.
and
It’s true that, in her much-criticized TV performance, she was reciting talking points given to her by the intelligence agencies. But that’s the trouble. Rice stuck with her points even though they had been contradicted by the president of the Libyan National Assembly, who, on CBS’s “Face the Nation” just before Rice, said there was “no doubt” that the attack on Americans in Benghazi “was preplanned.” Rice rebutted the Libyan official, arguing — falsely, it turned out — that there was no evidence of such planning.
True, Rice was following orders from the White House, which she does well. But the nation’s top diplomat needs to show more sensitivity and independence — traits Clinton has demonstrated in abundance. Obama can do better at State than Susan Rice.
And this is the delicate damsel Obama got all puffed up about. Hilarious.
Thank you, Dana, a usually reliable Democrat sycophant, for possibly helping us miss the bullet on this one!
The article also includes this paragraph:
'Rice’s pugilism provoked the Russians to weigh in this week in opposition to her nomination as secretary of state. The Russian business daily Kommersant quoted an anonymous Russian foreign ministry official as saying that Rice, who quarreled with Russia over Syria, is “too ambitious and aggressive,” and her appointment would make it “more difficult for Moscow to work with Washington.”'
If this had been written about John Bolton the right would be using this as an argument for his suitability to be Sec. State.
The war jones struck hard, like the first vicious gust of an incoming blizzard.
"I need my fix! NOW! Come ON, man! It's been years now with NOTHING! I just need one more hit, okay? This hit will make everything better, right? I mean, it'll be better than the last one, right?"
A trembling hand held out a credit card.
It is also a mistake, I think, to refer to Benghazi as either an al Qaeda attack or a "terrorist" attack.
There was no attempt at terrorism. There was something there that someone wanted and either set up the attack themselves or hired it done in order to go get it.
The administration fumbles may be about trying to hide what that something was and probably that whatever it was, the attackers got it.
Good little Nazi that Rice creature.
Lesly - It was reported he said otherwise.
You're ignoring the big part. The inconvenient part:
Former CIA Director David Petraeus stoked the controversy over the Obama administration's handling of the Libya terror attack, testifying Friday that references to "Al Qaeda involvement" were stripped from his agency's original talking points -- while other intelligence officials were unable to say who changed the memo, according to a top lawmaker who was briefed.
"His testimony today was that from the start, he had told us that this was a terrorist attack," ...
Still, the claim that the CIA's original talking points were changed is sure to stoke controversy on the Hill.
"The original talking points were much more specific about Al Qaeda involvement. And yet the final ones just said indications of extremists,"
A congressional source familiar with this week's testimony also told Fox News that the language in the CIA talking points about Benghazi was changed from "Al Qaeda-affiliated individuals to extremist organizations" -- which had the effect of minimizing the role of terrorists in the attack.
"It really changed the whole tone of it,"
We all know now the "video" had ZERO to do with it. So - why did team Obama lie, Leslyn?
Could it be that lying comes so easy and that they are coverd by a lap dog media, they thought nothing of it?
The longer this Praeteus dog and pony show drags on the more he looks like a scapegoat.
Comrades! Disagreement with the Party means expulsion from the Party!
Forward! Comrades! Shoulder to shoulder!
Post a Comment