Is Benghazi Obama's Waterloo?

[NewbieJr 541]

All that stuff about Whitewater and Bill gets re-elected. And not one iota of any charges sticking. It actually turned my mom from republican to independent. And you know what, Hillary will still get elected in 2016. And my mom will vote for her. Republicans should quit being so mean and angry. Jmho.

This.

The entire party comes across as a bitter old man whose time had passed them by.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Carney's claim there was only one word changed in the talking points kinda bit him in the ass today.

 

 

Exclusive: Benghazi Talking Points Underwent 12 Revisions, Scrubbed of Terror Reference

 

 

 

When it became clear last fall that the CIA’s now discredited Benghazi talking points were flawed, the White House said repeatedly the documents were put together almost entirely by the intelligence community, but White House documents reviewed by Congress suggest a different story.

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 sheappeared on five talk shows the Sunday after that attack.

 

 

 

 

White House emails reviewed by ABC News suggest the edits were made with extensive input from the State Department. The edits included requests from the State Department that references to the Al Qaeda-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia be deleted as well references to CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack.

That would appear to directly contradict what White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said about the talking points in November.

“Those talking points originated from the intelligence community. They reflect the IC’s best assessments of what they thought had happened,” Carney told reporters at the White House press briefing on November 28, 2012. “The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two institutions were changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility’ because ‘consulate’ was inaccurate.”

Summaries of White House and State Department emails — some of which were first published by Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard — show that the State Department had extensive input into the editing of the talking points.

State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland raised specific objections to this paragraph drafted by the CIA in its earlier versions of the talking points:

“The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al-Qa’ida in Benghazi and eastern Libya. These noted that, 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.”

In an email to officials at the White House and the intelligence agencies, State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland took issue with including that information 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? Concerned …”

The paragraph was entirely deleted.

Like the final version used by Ambassador Rice on the Sunday shows, the CIA’s first drafts said the attack appeared to have been “spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo” but the CIA version went on to say, “That being said, we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.” The draft went on to specifically name the al Qaeda-affiliated group named Ansar al-Sharia.

Related: ABC News’ Chief White House Correspondent Jonathan Karl Answers Your Questions About Benghazi

Once again, Nuland objected to naming the terrorist groups because “we don’t want to prejudice the investigation.”

In response, an NSC staffer coordinating the review of the talking points wrote back to Nuland, “The FBI did not have major concerns with the points and offered only a couple minor suggestions.”

After the talking points were edited slightly to address Nuland’s concerns, she responded that changes did not go far enough.

“These changes don’t resolve all of my issues or those of my buildings leadership,” Nuland wrote.

In an email dated 9/14/12 at 9:34 p.m. — three days after the attack and two days before Ambassador Rice appeared on the Sunday shows – Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes wrote an email saying the State Department’s concerns needed to be addressed.

“We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don’t want to undermine the FBI investigation. We thus will work through the talking points tomorrow morning at the Deputies Committee meeting.”

Related: Diplomat Says Requests For Benghazi Rescue Were Rejected

After that meeting, which took place Saturday morning at the White House, the CIA drafted the final version of the talking points – deleting all references to al Qaeda and to the security warnings in Benghazi prior to the attack.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said none of this contradicts what he said about the talking points because ultimately all versions were actually written and signed-off by the CIA.

“The CIA drafted these talking points and redrafted these talking points,” Carney said. “The fact that there are inputs is always the case in a process like this, but the only edits made by anyone here at the White House were stylistic and nonsubstantive. They corrected the description of the building or the facility in Benghazi from consulate to diplomatic facility and the like. And ultimately, this all has been discussed and reviewed and provided in enormous levels of detail by the administration to Congressional investigators, and the attempt to politicize the talking points, again, is part of an effort to, you know, chase after what isn’t the substance here.”

UPDATE: A source familiar with the White House emails on the Benghazi talking point revisions say that State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland was raising two concerns about the CIA’s first version of talking points, which were going to be sent to Congress: 1) The talking points went further than what she was allowed to say about the attack during her state department briefings; and, 2) she believed the CIA was attempting to exonerate itself at the State Department’s expense by suggesting CIA warnings about the security situation were ignored.

In one email, Nuland asked, why are we suggest Congress “start making assertions to the media [about the al Qaeda connection] that we ourselves are not making because we don’t want to prejudice the investigation?”

One other point: The significant edits – deleting references to al Qaeda and the CIA’s warnings – came after a White House meeting on the Saturday before Ambassador Susan Rice appeared on five Sunday shows. Nuland, a 30-year foreign service veteran who has served under Democratic and Republican Secretaries of State, was not at that meeting and played no direct role in preparing Rice for her interviews.

 

 

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/exclusive-benghazi-talking-points-underwent-12-revisions-scrubbed-of-terror-references/

 

 

[drobeski 3,061]

Hang the spineless criminal murderers

[DankNuggs 305]

Keep digging. The rhetoric went from angry partisan republicans to legitimate questions need to be answered as long as it doesn't hurt democratic chances in 2016. It's a big shift.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Hillary was dead nutz on with this ad. Obama was not up to the task......only problem is that she wasn't either.

 

 

 

[Voltaire 5,316]

Hang the spineless criminal murderers

I'm still partial to drone strikes.

[rholio 339]

I'm still partial to drone strikes.

 

Lynch mobs have a real nostalgia feel, though. Ask Phurfur what they were like back in the day.

[drobeski 3,061]

Non story bump

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Non story bump

MDC went on record saying he and he rest of the Obama voters don't care about the truth on this.

 

Obama lied his way to re-election, so they think this is a non-story.

 

 

Winning!

[Phurfur 70]

MDC went on record saying he and he rest of the Obama voters don't care about the truth on this.

 

Obama lied his way to re-election, so they think this is a non-story.

 

 

Winning!

 

The Lemmings dismiss any facts that show their leaders are less than what they perceive them to be.

 

LA-LA-LA-LA

[drobeski 3,061]

 

 

For some strange reason this woman does not get as much main stream attention as cindy sheehan

[NewbieJr 541]

You guys still whining about this?

[MDC 7,432]

MDC went on record saying he and he rest of the Obama voters don't care about the truth on this.

 

 

Link?

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Most people didn't care before the election either.

[MDC 7,432]

So you have no link to me saying me and Obummer voters don't care. Your record of total fail continues!

[Voltaire 5,316]

So you have no link to me saying me and Obummer voters don't care. Your record of total fail continues!

I dont now about you, but he's perfectly assessed my attitude on the 'scandal.' I don't care about the 'truth' the truth diggers aer digging for. The real truth is the truth diggers are political hacks trying to artificially manufacture a fake scandal into something real. They all desperatly want to accomplish a stunt similar to the one Andrew McCarthy pulled in that cheesy '80s movie when the sexy mannequin became real.

[jerryskids 6,799]

I dont now about you, but he's perfectly assessed my attitude on the 'scandal.' I don't care about the 'truth' the truth diggers aer digging for. The real truth is the truth diggers are political hacks trying to artificially manufacture a fake scandal into something real. They all desperatly want to accomplish a stunt similar to the one Andrew McCarthy pulled in that cheesy '80s movie when the sexy mannequin became real.

That's really sad. I continue to scratch my head as to why you have this attitude.

[SUXBNME 1,503]

That's really sad. I continue to scratch my head as to why you have this attitude.

Seconded.

 

Volty can be a hard one to read on occasion.

[Reality 3,121]

That's really sad. I continue to scratch my head as to why you have this attitude.

It's not sad, it's focking pathetic and disgusting. His views have been borderline absurd for awhile now though.

 

This is really just a natural progression for him at this point.

[Voltaire 5,316]

That's really sad. I continue to scratch my head as to why you have this attitude.

Jerry, there's nothing in this 'scandal'. It's an empty glass of nothing.

 

They took three weeks to say it was a terrorist attack. That's a scandal? Is there more? Is that it? WTF?

 

Maybe you can explain. Everybody is hyperventilating and they don't even know what they're hyperventilating about. I still don't know what the point of the 'investigation' allegedly is. Is there something to uncover? Is there a conspiracy? WTF is the point of whatever Obama/Hillary/Honey BooBoo/Manti Te'o did wrong in this? I don't get any of it.

 

Let's all get really angry... but nobody knows WTF we're supposed to be angry about.

 

I assumed it was about the lack of security at the embassy and the inept response... that would make sense. I could understand that. That doesn't seem to be the point. So what's the (alleged) point?

[Voltaire 5,316]

It's not sad, it's focking pathetic and disgusting. His views have been borderline absurd for awhile now though.

 

This is really just a natural progression for him at this point.

You should change your handle to 'Delusion'.

[drobeski 3,061]

 

Judge pirro nails it

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Jerry, there's nothing in this 'scandal'. It's an empty glass of nothing.

 

They took three weeks to say it was a terrorist attack. That's a scandal? Is there more? Is that it? WTF?

 

Maybe you can explain. Everybody is hyperventilating and they don't even know what they're hyperventilating about. I still don't know what the point of the 'investigation' allegedly is. Is there something to uncover? Is there a conspiracy? WTF is the point of whatever Obama/Hillary/Honey BooBoo/Manti Te'o did wrong in this? I don't get any of it.

 

Let's all get really angry... but nobody knows WTF we're supposed to be angry about.

 

I assumed it was about the lack of security at the embassy and the inept response... that would make sense. I could understand that. That doesn't seem to be the point. So what's the (alleged) point?

 

 

You already said you don't care about he truth, so why ask for the reason others think the truth matters?

 

Just admit you will give Obama a pass on anything and move on. No need to act like the truth matters to you in any way.

[jerryskids 6,799]

Jerry, there's nothing in this 'scandal'. It's an empty glass of nothing.

 

They took three weeks to say it was a terrorist attack. That's a scandal? Is there more? Is that it? WTF?

 

Maybe you can explain. Everybody is hyperventilating and they don't even know what they're hyperventilating about. I still don't know what the point of the 'investigation' allegedly is. Is there something to uncover? Is there a conspiracy? WTF is the point of whatever Obama/Hillary/Honey BooBoo/Manti Te'o did wrong in this? I don't get any of it.

 

Let's all get really angry... but nobody knows WTF we're supposed to be angry about.

 

I assumed it was about the lack of security at the embassy and the inept response... that would make sense. I could understand that. That doesn't seem to be the point. So what's the (alleged) point?

I feel like I've answered this before. From my perspective, the high probability that they lied about the terrorism attack in and of itself isn't that big of a deal. The reason for the lie would be more interesting. Exactly who knew and who authorized what on that evening would be more interesting. Leaving the ambassador and our other citizens largely undefended (despite requests for help) is troubling. Putting the life of a videographer at risk (and possibly illegally detaining him, if they did that) to advance a political agenda is disconcerting.

[DankNuggs 305]

As I see it unfolding now:

 

The CIA was responsible for the recruitment of the local militia that was to be the primary perimeter defense and first responders. The State Department ultimately was responsible for security and continugency plans.When the situation went FUBAR most the militia ran away, a few stayed. Both of these agencies magificently failed. The talking points were kicked back and forth as each side attempted to circumvent blame and criticism. After 12 revisions what remained was a complete CYA fabrication.

 

And as you can see in the rhetoric, its all been blame shifted and excuse making from then on. They say 7 hours wasn't enough time, but nobody knew the timeline in the heat of the moment. No rescue plans were initiated. Complete incompetance followed by blame shifting...

 

And they claim an investigation of this is 'political'....The psychologic terminology for this type of response is called 'projecting'. The investigation is a result of politics interfering with the truth. Whether or not it impacts 2016 is frankly irrelevant to the investigation. Find out the truth and let the chips fall where they may.

 

Most of the time these things don't really hurt politicians moving forward, but people need to be held accountable. The Dem stance here is really ridiculous.

[IGotWorms 4,058]

David Brooks (conservative columnist) said what I have believed all along on Meet the Press this weekend: this was a botched job by the CIA. That's why there isn't much willingness to talk about this, because the CIA won't/can't reveal operational details.

 

I suspect Issa knows this too, which means he is treading a very dangerous line here in potentially harming American interests for his little political witch hunt.

 

I'm not sure about the talking points that followed, but I'll be frank in saying that Americans don't really care about that at this point. The campaign has been over for months and months now.

 

Also I took a fantastic poop right when I got up this morning. What a way to start to start off the week

[TimmySmith 2,782]

David Brooks (conservative columnist) said what I have believed all along on Meet the Press this weekend: this was a botched job by the CIA. That's why there isn't much willingness to talk about this, because the CIA won't/can't reveal operational details.

 

 

The CIA must hold a lot of power to get the WH to put forth a BS story on what happened.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

The Carney Barker threw the CIA under the bus on Friday in his hastily called news conference to explain the one talking points "stylistic" change that was really 12 re-writes, and Worms fell for it.

 

I'm shocked.........shocked I tells ya.

[IGotWorms 4,058]

The CIA must hold a lot of power to get the WH to put forth a BS story on what happened.

Is that a joke? They absolutely have that power, although I think it's pretty clear that isn't what happened here.

 

Also I addressed your "point" in the last paragraph of my post, which you conveniently deleted.

 

Forget about the talking points RP. Only you and your ilk care. The questions are why wasn't there better security, and how come there wasn't a greater response once the incident began? And I don't think we're gonna get those answers since both questions directly implicate the CIA.

[DankNuggs 305]

David Brooks (conservative columnist) said what I have believed all along on Meet the Press this weekend: this was a botched job by the CIA. That's why there isn't much willingness to talk about this, because the CIA won't/can't reveal operational details.

 

I suspect Issa knows this too, which means he is treading a very dangerous line here in potentially harming American interests for his little political witch hunt.

 

I'm not sure about the talking points that followed, but I'll be frank in saying that Americans don't really care about that at this point. The campaign has been over for months and months now.

 

Also I took a fantastic poop right when I got up this morning. What a way to start to start off the week

LOL, what a ridiculous persepctive.... Its not a witch hunt, its pretty clear there was an attempt to cover up the truth. Libs always looking for an angle that justifies lies, loose morality, personal reponsibility...

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Is that a joke? They absolutely have that power, although I think it's pretty clear that isn't what happened here.

 

Also I addressed your "point" in the last paragraph of my post, which you conveniently deleted.

 

Forget about the talking points RP. Only you and your ilk care. The questions are why wasn't there better security, and how come there wasn't a greater response once the incident began? And I don't think we're gonna get those answers since both questions directly implicate the CIA.

 

 

You obviously have no problem with Obama, Hillary, Rice, and Carney lying to the American public, and the UN, for weeks. Makes Obama look bad, so you shrug it off as some right wing witch hunt. We get that.

 

Was the CIA in charge of security? Nope, that falls on the State Dept and Hillary. She is who refused repeated requests for more security.

 

 

Did the CIA tell the Special Ops in Tripoli to stand down? Nope, they are not Commander in Chief and do not run the military.

 

Just say you don't care about the truth because it will make your hero look bad and move on. Trying to sell the WH spin on this isn't working here.

[NewbieJr 541]

 

Trying to sell the WH spin on this isn't working here.

Actually, it's working perfectly fine for 90% of the country's population.

[IGotWorms 4,058]

LOL, what a ridiculous persepctive.... Its not a witch hunt, its pretty clear there was an attempt to cover up the truth. Libs always looking for an angle that justifies lies, loose morality, personal reponsibility...

Think about this for a second: what was the CIA doing providing security for a diplomatic mission?

 

That's not their job. The CIA aren't security guards.

 

This was a CIA operation through and through. I'd bet dollars to doughnuts the diplomatic mission was basically a total farce that existed only to explain the curious American presence in Benghazi. Hell, Stevens himself might have been CIA.

 

And do you think the Administration wants to air to the entire world that they use the State Department as a front for clandestine operations? No, that would be focking retarded.

[MDC 7,432]

LOL, what a ridiculous persepctive.... Its not a witch hunt, its pretty clear there was an attempt to cover up the truth. Libs always looking for an angle that justifies lies, loose morality, personal reponsibility...

Wow, from the party that still insists the Bush admin didn't lie us into war in Iraq this is some pretty galling hypocrisy.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

BUSH!

Good justification for not caring about the truth on this issue.

[MDC 7,432]

Good justification for not caring about the truth on this issue.

What was your justification for not caring about the truth on Iraq again, Drama Pilot?

[KSB2424 3,148]

Even if you don't buy into the "conspiracy theory" angle of a cover up (of which I do not), at the VERY least this administration bungled how it was handled. From the reason for it (youtube video) to how the administration handled the crisis itself. At the very least Rice, Hillary, Obama and everyone involved in Washington should have some egg on their face. Maybe there was no malice in some cover up or whathaveyou but the whole situation was handled awful.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

What was your justification for not caring about the truth on Iraq again, Drama Pilot?

The U.S and many other country's intel agencies got it wrong. Well documented.

 

Relying on faulty intel isn't the same as blatant lies made up about a youtube video.

 

But hey, at this point Obama has been nailed on so many lies with this issue I can see why you a flailing away about Bush.

[MDC 7,432]

The U.S and many other country's intel agencies got it wrong. Well documented.

 

Relying on faulty intel isn't the same as blatant lies made up about a youtube video.

 

But hey, at this point Obama has been nailed on so many lies with this issue I can see why you a flailing away about Bush.

Your insincerity on this issue is obvious to everyone, which is why I don't even engage. You and your creepy Mormon hero can go blow a big dong until 2016, loser. Your cry-fest is slightly amusing but mostly sad, like when a clown gets AIDS.

[NewbieJr 541]

Who posted in: Is Benghazi Obama's Waterloo?

 

Member name Posts Recliner Pilot 95 MDC 66 drobeski 63 Phurfur 59

 

 

Any surprise to see which hacks are desperately trying to make this be way m ore than it is? LOLOL