Benghazi
-
some? Benghazi emails have been released. And, absolutely, the talking points were
edited those 11 times, because they wanted to avoid having the Obamao regime seen
in a bad light because of the election.
Huge scandal. If it wasn't, the Obamao regime would come clean.
"Most transparent"...just another huge ass lie.
-
John Dickerson in Slate:
I was told there was going to be a cover-up. After reading the 100 pages of emails related to the Benghazi media talking points, I’m hard-pressed to find evidence for the most damning accusations against the president and his staff. If they were involved, they were once again leading from behind.
The most incendiary charge aimed at the president is that, in order to insulate himself in an election year, he and his team made up a fake story about a "spontaneous uprising" in Benghazi and downplayed intelligence that it could have been a premeditated attack by known terrorist organizations. There has been so much spinning from the president and his staff in the aftermath of the attack, this storyline seems possible—when the public spin is this bad it is easy to imagine deeper rot. The emails help your imagination along. They destroy the impression left last November by White House spokesman Jay Carney that only a single word was changed in the process, which can get your adrenaline up. But when you pull on the thread in search of evidence for the Big Story, your heartbeat slows. The emails show a lot of CIA and State Department action, but comparatively little White House meddling, and certainly nothing near the level of meddling that would be required to put in the big fix.
One of the challenges of figuring out what's a cover-up, what's a lie, and what's just spin in this Benghazi drama is that this entire discussion is about media talking points. Talking points produced to guide members of Congress in their conversations with the media are not the product of sodium pentothal. They are created to put the best face on an event and to coordinate spin so that everyone in the administration, campaign, or party caucus has the story straight. That means if you don't see bureaucratic ass-covering and efforts to make the interesting appear bland, you're not reading talking points. So, for example, when House Speaker John Boehner and President Obama have a contentious meeting, their aides agree on talking points in which they tell the media the two men had a "frank exchange." Not a lie, but not an expletive-laden transcript either. In this case, the talking points were being created on the fly as information was coming in about the attack and an investigation was underway. So, in addition to the normal massaging of language, there was a good deal of imprecision, too.
Given that context, what do the emails tell us about the Obama election-season cover-up story? First there is the matter of the "spontaneous demonstration" that ignited the violence.The president’s critics contend that the Obama team put United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice on the Sunday talk shows to promote a false story about a link between the violence in Benghazi and the demonstrations in Cairo over an anti-Islamic video. If this were true, it would indeed make the whole business a cover-up. Talking points may not be suitable for stone tablets, but you're not supposed to actually lie. But the one thing that is consistent throughout the talking-point editing process is the very first sentence of the CIA assessment: "The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo."
-
Stay tuned. There is now email proof of a feud between the CIA and the State Dept over changes
to the talking points paper.
Guess what. They have been also found to be concerned over how Clinton and Obamao looked ...
Petraeus is upset with the changes by the state dept. Which is run by Clinton, who is run by Obamao.
-
Republican staffers changed the emails to make them look more incriminating than they actually were, then leaked those to the press. Then the actual emails came out and they don't show anything but the usual bureaucratic squabbling.
You can always count on Republicans to overplay their hand. Which is why many, like Krauthammer, are out there telling all of you to cool it.
But you can't! This is what you do.
Start those calls for impeachment! Bring it on!
-
By Greg Sargent, Published: May 10, 2013 at 11:33 amABC News made a big splash this morning by reporting this about the CIA’s now-discredited Benghazi talking points:ABC News has obtained 12 different versions of the talking points that show they were extensively edited as they evolved from the drafts first written entirely by the CIA to the final version distributed to Congress and to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice before she appeared on five talk shows the Sunday after that attack.ABC has helpfully posted the dozen versions of the talking points, so we can track the editing of them ourselves. Here are the main takeaways:1) The talking points confirm that the intelligence community had determined at the time that the “the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate.” The key words there are “spontaneously” and “evolved.” That assessment does not change in any of the subsequent revisions.This confirms that the version of events the administration initially offered was, in fact, grounded in the intelligence community’s assessment at the moment (which turned out to be wrong). However, Susan Rice falsely extrapolated from the talking points during her now infamous TV appearances that the anti-Islam video was the cause of the attacks. That isn’t what the talking points say.They only say the protests were the genesis of them. The talking points don’t mention the video.2) The talking points clarify exactly how the reference to al-Qa’ida was edited out. In the initial versions, the talking points say that “we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.” That was subsequently cut down to “Islamic extremists,” and then to just “extremists.”So it’s true that the reference to al-Qa’ida was in fact deleted. And at one point, the talking points specifically name the group Ansar al-Sharia, which was also deleted.But ABC reports that a State Department official objected to inclusion of the specific names because “we don’t want to prejudice the investigation.” There’s no clear evidence of any other motive at this point.What’s more, the talking points never describe the attacks as premeditated terrorism. They just say that “extremists” with ties to al-Qa’ida “participated” in the attacks.3) The talking points do confirm that they were edited at the urging of the State Department, and a leaked email shows that this was partly out of a concern over appearances. This portion was deleted entirely:The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al-Qa’ida in Benghazi and eastern Libya. Since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador’s convoy. We cannot rule out the individuals has previously surveilled the U.S. facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks.ABC News reports that an email from State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland shows that she objected to the inclusion of that portion. She said she was “concerned,” because it “could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either?”So here’s where we are. The talking points were edited more extensively than the White House initially said, and with more direct involvement by the State Department. Indeed, spokesman Jay Carney, in his statement to ABC News, carefully elided this point by claiming that “the only edits made by anyone here at the White House were stylistic and non-substantive.” Emphasis mine; that was not Carney’s original claim.It’s clear also that worry over appearances was at least partly the reason for at least one of the State-driven edits.At the same time, the talking points also show that the intelligence community had not concluded at that point that the attacks were pre-meditated terror, believed that they had “evolved” from “spontaneous” protests, and that al Qa’ida extremists had merely “participated” in them. In assessing the situation, the administration (with the exception of Rice’s false implication of the video) was, in fact, largely repeating what the intelligence community believed at the time. It may well be true that the administration was too slow in subsequent days to acknowledge that the attacks were terrorism, but there’s still no clear evidence of any nefarious motive in doing so or that it wasn’t largely taking its cues from the intelligence community’s own evolving assessment.
By Greg Sargent, Published: May 10, 2013 at 11:33 amABC News made a big splash this morning by reporting this about the CIA’s now-discredited Benghazi talking points:ABC News has obtained 12 different versions of the talking points that show they were extensively edited as they evolved from the drafts first written entirely by the CIA to the final version distributed to Congress and to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice before she appeared on five talk shows the Sunday after that attack.ABC has helpfully posted the dozen versions of the talking points, so we can track the editing of them ourselves. Here are the main takeaways:1) The talking points confirm that the intelligence community had determined at the time that the “the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate.” The key words there are “spontaneously” and “evolved.” That assessment does not change in any of the subsequent revisions.This confirms that the version of events the administration initially offered was, in fact, grounded in the intelligence community’s assessment at the moment (which turned out to be wrong). However, Susan Rice falsely extrapolated from the talking points during her now infamous TV appearances that the anti-Islam video was the cause of the attacks. That isn’t what the talking points say.They only say the protests were the genesis of them. The talking points don’t mention the video.2) The talking points clarify exactly how the reference to al-Qa’ida was edited out. In the initial versions, the talking points say that “we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.” That was subsequently cut down to “Islamic extremists,” and then to just “extremists.”So it’s true that the reference to al-Qa’ida was in fact deleted. And at one point, the talking points specifically name the group Ansar al-Sharia, which was also deleted.But ABC reports that a State Department official objected to inclusion of the specific names because “we don’t want to prejudice the investigation.” There’s no clear evidence of any other motive at this point.What’s more, the talking points never describe the attacks as premeditated terrorism. They just say that “extremists” with ties to al-Qa’ida “participated” in the attacks.3) The talking points do confirm that they were edited at the urging of the State Department, and a leaked email shows that this was partly out of a concern over appearances. This portion was deleted entirely:The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al-Qa’ida in Benghazi and eastern Libya. Since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador’s convoy. We cannot rule out the individuals has previously surveilled the U.S. facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks.ABC News reports that an email from State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland shows that she objected to the inclusion of that portion. She said she was “concerned,” because it “could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either?”So here’s where we are. The talking points were edited more extensively than the White House initially said, and with more direct involvement by the State Department. Indeed, spokesman Jay Carney, in his statement to ABC News, carefully elided this point by claiming that “the only edits made by anyone here at the White House were stylistic and non-substantive.” Emphasis mine; that was not Carney’s original claim.It’s clear also that worry over appearances was at least partly the reason for at least one of the State-driven edits.At the same time, the talking points also show that the intelligence community had not concluded at that point that the attacks were pre-meditated terror, believed that they had “evolved” from “spontaneous” protests, and that al Qa’ida extremists had merely “participated” in them. In assessing the situation, the administration (with the exception of Rice’s false implication of the video) was, in fact, largely repeating what the intelligence community believed at the time. It may well be true that the administration was too slow in subsequent days to acknowledge that the attacks were terrorism, but there’s still no clear evidence of any nefarious motive in doing so or that it wasn’t largely taking its cues from the intelligence community’s own evolving assessment.
-
Exactly. Heck ignored it, desperately. Sold out lib cultists do that. It's like
heck is one of those women members of Mansons cult family. Total, insane support,
hysterical and manic. Pitiful.
-
And no headlines about Obama. Gee, I wonder what they're up to...
And no headlines about Obama. Gee, I wonder what they're up to...
Eric Holder and company I presume?
-
And no headlines about Obama. Gee, I wonder what they're up to...
And no headlines about Obama. Gee, I wonder what they're up to...
HOW ABOUT THIS? - News Poll http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/21/fox-news-poll-obama-could-have-done-more-to-help-those-in-benghazi/
Voters think President Obama could have done more to help the Americans at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya when it was being attacked, according to a Fox News poll. In addition, a majority says the Obama administration is trying to cover-up what happened there.
The new poll, released Tuesday, shows 62 percent of voters think Obama could have done more to help those at the consulate in Benghazi on the night of the attack.
Even Democrats are about equally likely to say the president could have done more (44 percent) as to say he did all he could (43 percent). Eighty-four percent of Republicans and 60 percent of independents think Obama could have done more.
Nearly two-thirds of voters who have served in the military think Obama could have done more.
so as not to forget.....
The violent attack on the anniversary of September 11 killed a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans.
-
according to a Fox News poll
That's like me referencing an article on the greenpeace website showing a greenpeace poll stating something about how everyone believes in global warming
-
Woody -
what are YOUR "unbiased" news sources?
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login