jonny5
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2012
- Messages
- 27,581
- Reaction score
- 4,664
- Location
- Republic of Florida
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
White House releases Benghazi e-mails - CNN.com
Washington (CNN) -- The White House released more than 100 pages of e-mails on Wednesday in a bid to quell critics who say President Barack Obama and his aides played politics with national security following the deadly terror attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya.
The e-mails detail the complex back and forth between the CIA, State Department, and the White House in developing unclassified talking points that were used to underpin a controversial and slow-to-evolve explanation of events last September 11.
Link to emails - White House releases Benghazi e-mails
1. Did they release only he emails that support their narrative?
2. Why didnt we get this information 6 months ago when congress was asking for it?
Does it really change anything? We know that at the very least the govt got the intelligence wrong, and pushed a narrative that was wrong long after they had been told they were wrong. And that an american was thrown in jail on a parol violation of using a computer, where he still remains because of the narrative the govt was pushing. No one will be held accountable, so in a way I agree with Hillary, what difference does this make?
This is still just a sideshow to the real issue, why the govt failed to protect the consulate, and why it failed to react to the attack once it was under way.
No, apparently the emails refute their narrative. Changes to the talking points were not the result of CIA rewrites, but State Department meddling and manipulation.Link to emails - White House releases Benghazi e-mails
1. Did they release only he emails that support their narrative?
No, apparently the emails refute their narrative. Changes to the talking points were not the result of CIA rewrites, but State Department meddling and manipulation.
State Department officials repeatedly objected to -- and tried to water down -- references to Islamic extremist groups and prior security warnings in the administration's initial internal story-line on the Benghazi attack, according to dozens of emails and notes released by the White House late Wednesday.
The documents also showed the White House, along with several other departments, played a role in editing the so-called "talking points," despite claims from the White House that it was barely involved. And they showed then-CIA Director David Petraeus objected to the watered-down version that would ultimately be used as the basis for U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice's flawed comments on several TV shows the Sunday after the attack.
"Frankly, I'd just as soon not use this," Petraeus told his deputy in a Sept. 15 email.
The 100-page file showed that State Department officials were even more heavily involved in editing the "talking points" than was previously known.
One email sent the Friday night after the attack from an unknown official said: "The State Department had major reservations with much or most of the document."
Individual emails leading up to that assessment show State officials repeatedly objecting to the intelligence community's early version of events.
State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland complained that she had "serious concerns" about "arming members of Congress" to make assertions the administration was not making. "In same vein, why do we want Hill to be fingering Ansar al Sharia, when we aren't doing that ourselves until we have investigation results ... and the penultimate point could be abused by Members to beat the State Department for not paying attention to Agency warnings so why do we want to feed that either? Concerned ..."
She also wrote that the line saying the administration knows there were extremists among the demonstrators "will come back to us at podium," voicing concern that some would question how the administration knows that.
In response to her concerns, Assistant Secretary of State David S. Adams voiced agreement. He said the line about prior incidents "will read to members like we had been repeatedly warned."
The emails show Petraeus' deputy Mike Morell involved in circulating revised points. In one email, he too noted the State Department had "deep concerns" about referencing prior "warnings."
Shortly afterward, Vietor thanked colleagues for revisions and said they would be vetted "here," as in the White House. He then forwarded "edits" from John Brennan, the current CIA chief who then was a White House counterterrorism adviser.
Link to emails - White House releases Benghazi e-mails
1. Did they release only he emails that support their narrative?
2. Why didnt we get this information 6 months ago when congress was asking for it?
Does it really change anything? We know that at the very least the govt got the intelligence wrong, and pushed a narrative that was wrong long after they had been told they were wrong. And that an american was thrown in jail on a parol violation of using a computer, where he still remains because of the narrative the govt was pushing. No one will be held accountable, so in a way I agree with Hillary, what difference does this make?
This is still just a sideshow to the real issue, why the govt failed to protect the consulate, and why it failed to react to the attack once it was under way.
While the administration maintains the decision to remove references to al Qaeda and Islamic extremists was driven by the CIA, the emails also show the State Department repeatedly expressing concern over various revisions of the talking points.
One email dated Sept. 14 from a CIA official to the agency’s director states, “The White House cleared quickly, but State has major concerns.”
Nuland emails the group revising the talking points to indicate that an initial round of edits that removed reference to al Qaeda — but not Islamic extremists — “didn’t resolve all my issues or those of my building leadership.”
Jake Sullivan, the director of policy planning at the State Department, notes in a subsequent email that he had been told “we can make edits.”
An email exchanged between two CIA officials sent later the same night notes that the agency “revised the document with [the State Department’s] concerns in mind.”
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?