- Joined
- Feb 26, 2012
- Messages
- 56,981
- Reaction score
- 27,029
- Location
- Chicago Illinois
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Private
Re: Trey Gowdy Undresses and Embarasses the Media for Benghazi Cover
Ask those who Hillary never checked back on to see if they made it out alive.
From the very beginning of the editing process, the talking points contained the erroneous assertion that the attack was “spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved.” That’s an important fact, because the right has always criticized the Administration based on the suggestion that the C.I.A. and the State Department, contrary to what they said, knew that the attack was not spontaneous and not an outgrowth of a demonstration. But everything else about the changes that were made is problematic. The initial draft revealed by Karl mentions “at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi” before the one in which four Americans were killed. That’s not in the final version. Nor is this: “[W]e do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.” That was replaced by the more tepid “There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.” (Even if we accept the argument that State wanted to be sure that extremists were involved, and that they could be linked to Al Qaeda, before saying so with any level of certainty—which is reasonable and supported by evidence from Karl’s reporting—that doesn’t fully explain these changes away.)
Democrats will argue that the editing process wasn’t motivated by a desire to protect Obama’s record on fighting Al Qaeda in the run-up to the 2012 election. They have a point; based on what we’ve seen from Karl’s report, the process that went into creating and then changing the talking points seems to have been driven in large measure by two parts of the government—C.I.A. and State—trying to make sure the blame for the attacks and the failure to protect American personnel in Benghazi fell on the other guy.
But the mere existence of the edits—whatever the motivation for them—seriously undermines the White House’s credibility on this issue. This past November (after Election Day), White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters that “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.”.....snip~
Spinning Benghazi: The C.I.A.'s Talking-Point Edits : The New Yorker
Benghazi e-mails show clash between State Department, CIA
http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...c8a650-b989-11e2-b94c-b684dda07add_story.html
Uh oh. :shock:
New Benghazi Emails – “Penultimate” Concern was Hiding Warnings from Congress and the People
Victoria Nuland clearly states she didn’t want to “arm” congress and the people WITH THE TRUTH… so they LIED. And somehow that is supposed to exonerate the State Department and the Obama administration?
New Benghazi Emails – “Penultimate” Concern was Hiding Warnings from Congress and the People | American Everyman
Ask those who Hillary never checked back on to see if they made it out alive.
From the very beginning of the editing process, the talking points contained the erroneous assertion that the attack was “spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved.” That’s an important fact, because the right has always criticized the Administration based on the suggestion that the C.I.A. and the State Department, contrary to what they said, knew that the attack was not spontaneous and not an outgrowth of a demonstration. But everything else about the changes that were made is problematic. The initial draft revealed by Karl mentions “at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi” before the one in which four Americans were killed. That’s not in the final version. Nor is this: “[W]e do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.” That was replaced by the more tepid “There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.” (Even if we accept the argument that State wanted to be sure that extremists were involved, and that they could be linked to Al Qaeda, before saying so with any level of certainty—which is reasonable and supported by evidence from Karl’s reporting—that doesn’t fully explain these changes away.)
Democrats will argue that the editing process wasn’t motivated by a desire to protect Obama’s record on fighting Al Qaeda in the run-up to the 2012 election. They have a point; based on what we’ve seen from Karl’s report, the process that went into creating and then changing the talking points seems to have been driven in large measure by two parts of the government—C.I.A. and State—trying to make sure the blame for the attacks and the failure to protect American personnel in Benghazi fell on the other guy.
But the mere existence of the edits—whatever the motivation for them—seriously undermines the White House’s credibility on this issue. This past November (after Election Day), White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters that “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.”.....snip~
Spinning Benghazi: The C.I.A.'s Talking-Point Edits : The New Yorker
Benghazi e-mails show clash between State Department, CIA
http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...c8a650-b989-11e2-b94c-b684dda07add_story.html
Uh oh. :shock:
New Benghazi Emails – “Penultimate” Concern was Hiding Warnings from Congress and the People
Victoria Nuland clearly states she didn’t want to “arm” congress and the people WITH THE TRUTH… so they LIED. And somehow that is supposed to exonerate the State Department and the Obama administration?
New Benghazi Emails – “Penultimate” Concern was Hiding Warnings from Congress and the People | American Everyman
Last edited:
There are now two less posters in this thread. Failure to stick to stick closely to the topic will result in more joining them and the possibility of points as well. 
