Home Mail MemberMap Chat (0) Wallpapers
Go Back   ChiefsPlanet > The Lounge > D.C.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-16-2013, 11:51 AM  
Comrade Crapski Comrade Crapski is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Sea of Green 23.4°
Casino cash: $28270
Benghazi Emails Directly Contradict White House Claims

The White House on Wednesday released 94 pages of emails between top administration and intelligence officials who helped shape the talking points about the attacks in Benghazi, Libya, that the CIA would provide to policymakers in both the legislative and executive branches.

The documents, first reported by THE WEEKLY STANDARD in articles here and here, directly contradict claims by White House press secretary Jay Carney and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that the revisions of those talking points were driven by the intelligence community and show heavy input from top Obama administration officials, particularly those at the State Department.

The emails provide further detail about the rewriting of the talking points during a 24-hour period from midday September 14 to midday September 15. As THE WEEKLY STANDARD previously reported, a briefing from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence shows that the big changes came in three waves – internally at the CIA, after email feedback from top administration officials, and during or after a meeting of high-ranking intelligence and national security officials the following morning.

The initial CIA changes softened some of the language about the participants in the Benghazi assault – from “Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda” to “Islamic extremists.” But CIA officials also added bullet points about the possible participation of Ansar al Sharia, an al Qaeda-linked jihadist group, and previous warnings about the deteriorating security situation in Benghazi. Those additions came out after the talking points were sent to “the interagency,” where the CIA’s final draft was further stripped down to little more than boilerplate. The half dozen references to terrorists – both in Benghazi and more generally – all but disappeared. Gone were references to al Qaeda, Ansar al Sharia, jihadists, Islamic extremists, etc. The only remaining mention was a note that “extremists” had participated in the attack.

As striking as what appears in the email traffic is what does not. There is no mention of the YouTube video that would become a central part of the administration’s explanation of the attacks to the American people until a brief mention in the subject line of emails coming out of an important meeting where further revisions were made.

Carney, in particular, is likely to face tough questioning about the contents of the emails because he made claims to reporters that were untrue. “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 – of these two institutions were changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility,’ because the word ‘consulate’ was inaccurate,” he told reporters on November 28, 2012.

That’s not true. An email sent at 9:15 PM on September 14, from an official in the CIA’s Office of Public Affairs to others at the agency, described the process this way. “The State Department had major reservations with much or most of the document. We revised the document with their concerns in mind.”

That directly contradicts what Carney said. It’s also difficult to reconcile with claims made by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during testimony she gave January 23 on Capitol Hill.

“It was an intelligence product,” she said, adding later that the “intelligence community was the principal decider about what went into talking points.” (See here for the original version of the talking points and the final one.)

Carney and other top Obama administration officials have long maintained that CIA officials revised the talking points with minimal input from Obama administration officials. The claim made little sense when they made it – why would CIA officials revise on their own a set of talking points they’d already finalized? The emails demonstrate clearly that it isn’t true.

Another CIA email, this one a draft of a message for CIA director David Petraeus, noted that the talking points process had “run into major problems,” in part because of the “major concerns” raised by the State Department. That same email reported that the issues would be revisited at the Deputies Committee meeting on Saturday morning.

Elsewhere, CIA officials seemed to understand that the document had been stripped of most of its content. An email from an official with the CIA’s Office of Terrorism Analysis, the office that drafted the original version of the talking points, signed off on the final version but seemed to understand that the new version wouldn’t please those who had requested it. “They are fine with me,” this CIA official wrote. “But, pretty sure HPSCI [the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence] won’t like them. :-)”

When Petraeus received the rewritten talking points, he objected. “Frankly, I’d just as soon not use this,” he wrote to a legislative affairs staffer. But he declined to put up a fight.

The documents answer some questions and raise many others. Did Hillary Clinton have any role in the efforts of State Department staffers to push for the many substantive revisions to the talking points? Clinton, who testified that she was a hands-on part of the State Department’s response to the attacks, has claimed she had nothing to do with the talking points.

And what about the administration’s claims that State and White House officials weren’t involved with substantive edits? In one email, Jake Sullivan, deputy chief of staff to Hillary Clinton, reports to State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland that he’s spoken with Obama’s top spokesman at the National Security Council, Tommy Vietor. “I spoke with Tommy. We’ll work through this in the morning and get comments back.”

In a separate email, he writes: “Talked to Tommy. We can make edits.”

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...html?nopager=1

Posts: 3,833
Comrade Crapski is too fat/Omaha.Comrade Crapski is too fat/Omaha.Comrade Crapski is too fat/Omaha.Comrade Crapski is too fat/Omaha.Comrade Crapski is too fat/Omaha.Comrade Crapski is too fat/Omaha.Comrade Crapski is too fat/Omaha.Comrade Crapski is too fat/Omaha.Comrade Crapski is too fat/Omaha.Comrade Crapski is too fat/Omaha.Comrade Crapski is too fat/Omaha.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 09:46 AM   #31
Comrade Crapski Comrade Crapski is offline
Banned
 

Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Sea of Green 23.4°
Casino cash: $28270
Poor Barry. He doesn't know what the heck is going on! He's just a crazy, mixed up girl!

Posts: 3,833
Comrade Crapski is too fat/Omaha.Comrade Crapski is too fat/Omaha.Comrade Crapski is too fat/Omaha.Comrade Crapski is too fat/Omaha.Comrade Crapski is too fat/Omaha.Comrade Crapski is too fat/Omaha.Comrade Crapski is too fat/Omaha.Comrade Crapski is too fat/Omaha.Comrade Crapski is too fat/Omaha.Comrade Crapski is too fat/Omaha.Comrade Crapski is too fat/Omaha.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 10:55 AM   #32
Xanathol Xanathol is offline
Starter
 

Join Date: Mar 2011
Casino cash: $15324
Quote:
Originally Posted by cosmo20002 View Post
I'm still trying to figure out why it matters if the terrorists were motivated by a video (which was the CIA's immediate determination due to other video-related protests in the Middle East) or if the terrorists were motivated by just a general hatred of the US.

As you said, the end result was the same either way.
And there you go putting words into the CIA's mouth again. The CIA - as of September 14th, since that is all that has been released - had talking points that the attack may have been inspired by the riots in Cairo, which themselves were only partly going on over the video. Saying the CIA 'immediately' ( and insinuating of their own accord ) blamed the video is a lie, period, end of discussion.

Why does it matter?! Obama seems to understand why it matters, for he and his were the ones to cover it up. He wanted to sell that the 'war on terror' was won, that he won it. Going into an election, if 'terrorists' attacked a diplomat, it would reflect poorly on him. Especially if it came to light that the CIA warned as far back as April and as recent as the day before the attack, that no help was sent and in fact, help denied.

What does it matter, seriously? To ask that, you must be like Hilliary - dishonest or a dumbass... maybe both.
Posts: 502
Xanathol must have mowed badgirl's lawn.Xanathol must have mowed badgirl's lawn.Xanathol must have mowed badgirl's lawn.Xanathol must have mowed badgirl's lawn.Xanathol must have mowed badgirl's lawn.Xanathol must have mowed badgirl's lawn.Xanathol must have mowed badgirl's lawn.Xanathol must have mowed badgirl's lawn.Xanathol must have mowed badgirl's lawn.Xanathol must have mowed badgirl's lawn.Xanathol must have mowed badgirl's lawn.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 11:01 AM   #33
WhawhaWhat WhawhaWhat is offline
Veteran
 

Join Date: Feb 2013
Casino cash: $32101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xanathol View Post
Why does it matter?! Obama seems to understand why it matters, for he and his were the ones to cover it up. He wanted to sell that the 'war on terror' was won, that he won it.
Are we going to pretend that a spin job by the President and his administration to the public is something new?



Posts: 3,639
WhawhaWhat 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliWhawhaWhat 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliWhawhaWhat 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliWhawhaWhat 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliWhawhaWhat 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliWhawhaWhat 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliWhawhaWhat 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliWhawhaWhat 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliWhawhaWhat 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliWhawhaWhat 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliWhawhaWhat 's adopt a chief was Sabby Piscitelli
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 11:08 AM   #34
stevieray stevieray is online now
Ring of Fire
 
stevieray's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2000
Casino cash: $85036508
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhawhaWhat View Post
Are we going to pretend that a spin job by the President and his administration to the public is something new?



...that is definitely an excellent "excuse" for all screw ups in the future.

Posts: 36,157
stevieray is obviously part of the inner Circle.stevieray is obviously part of the inner Circle.stevieray is obviously part of the inner Circle.stevieray is obviously part of the inner Circle.stevieray is obviously part of the inner Circle.stevieray is obviously part of the inner Circle.stevieray is obviously part of the inner Circle.stevieray is obviously part of the inner Circle.stevieray is obviously part of the inner Circle.stevieray is obviously part of the inner Circle.stevieray is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 11:12 AM   #35
WhawhaWhat WhawhaWhat is offline
Veteran
 

Join Date: Feb 2013
Casino cash: $32101
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevieray View Post
...that is definitely an excellent "excuse" for all screw ups in the future.

You are missing the point entirely. Why do we care now? Is this anything more than Republicans seeing an angle to earn some points with their base by attacking the democratic President on something that has happened many, many times before?
Posts: 3,639
WhawhaWhat 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliWhawhaWhat 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliWhawhaWhat 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliWhawhaWhat 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliWhawhaWhat 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliWhawhaWhat 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliWhawhaWhat 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliWhawhaWhat 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliWhawhaWhat 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliWhawhaWhat 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliWhawhaWhat 's adopt a chief was Sabby Piscitelli
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 11:19 AM   #36
stevieray stevieray is online now
Ring of Fire
 
stevieray's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2000
Casino cash: $85036508
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhawhaWhat View Post
You are missing the point entirely.
i'm not missing any point, this tactic has been beaten to death every time ANY criticism of Obama is mentioned...

It's partisan
It's deflection
It's dishonest
It's childish.."mooooooooooooooooom, all the other kids....."
Posts: 36,157
stevieray is obviously part of the inner Circle.stevieray is obviously part of the inner Circle.stevieray is obviously part of the inner Circle.stevieray is obviously part of the inner Circle.stevieray is obviously part of the inner Circle.stevieray is obviously part of the inner Circle.stevieray is obviously part of the inner Circle.stevieray is obviously part of the inner Circle.stevieray is obviously part of the inner Circle.stevieray is obviously part of the inner Circle.stevieray is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 11:32 AM   #37
WhawhaWhat WhawhaWhat is offline
Veteran
 

Join Date: Feb 2013
Casino cash: $32101
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevieray View Post
i'm not missing any point, this tactic has been beaten to death every time ANY criticism of Obama is mentioned...

It's partisan
It's deflection
It's dishonest
It's childish.."mooooooooooooooooom, all the other kids....."
So no concrete reason to care about this one?
Posts: 3,639
WhawhaWhat 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliWhawhaWhat 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliWhawhaWhat 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliWhawhaWhat 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliWhawhaWhat 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliWhawhaWhat 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliWhawhaWhat 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliWhawhaWhat 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliWhawhaWhat 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliWhawhaWhat 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliWhawhaWhat 's adopt a chief was Sabby Piscitelli
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 11:34 AM   #38
cosmo20002 cosmo20002 is offline
Debunking your bullshit
 
cosmo20002's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: KC area
Casino cash: $121465
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xanathol View Post
Why does it matter?! Obama seems to understand why it matters, for he and his were the ones to cover it up. He wanted to sell that the 'war on terror' was won, that he won it. Going into an election, if 'terrorists' attacked a diplomat, it would reflect poorly on him. Especially if it came to light that the CIA warned as far back as April and as recent as the day before the attack, that no help was sent and in fact, help denied.
This is just dumb. He has never said the 'war on terror' is over, and no one will ever say that. Who would ever think that? It takes one idiot to commit an act of terrorism. The "war" against it doesn't have an end point and its ridiculous to say anyone has claimed it has been won.
Posts: 17,312
cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 02:04 PM   #39
Xanathol Xanathol is offline
Starter
 

Join Date: Mar 2011
Casino cash: $15324
Quote:
Originally Posted by cosmo20002 View Post
This is just dumb. He has never said the 'war on terror' is over, and no one will ever say that. Who would ever think that? It takes one idiot to commit an act of terrorism. The "war" against it doesn't have an end point and its ridiculous to say anyone has claimed it has been won.
So ill-informed ( not surprising ) or dishonest. As reported:
Quote:
The war on terror is over,” a senior official in the State Department official tells the National Journal. “Now that we have killed most of al Qaida, now that people have come to see legitimate means of expression, people who once might have gone into al Qaida see an opportunity for a legitimate Islamism.”
Posts: 502
Xanathol must have mowed badgirl's lawn.Xanathol must have mowed badgirl's lawn.Xanathol must have mowed badgirl's lawn.Xanathol must have mowed badgirl's lawn.Xanathol must have mowed badgirl's lawn.Xanathol must have mowed badgirl's lawn.Xanathol must have mowed badgirl's lawn.Xanathol must have mowed badgirl's lawn.Xanathol must have mowed badgirl's lawn.Xanathol must have mowed badgirl's lawn.Xanathol must have mowed badgirl's lawn.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 02:21 PM   #40
mikey23545 mikey23545 is offline
MVP
 
mikey23545's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2000
Casino cash: $118378
Quote:
Originally Posted by cosmo20002 View Post
This is just dumb. He has never said the 'war on terror' is over, and no one will ever say that. Who would ever think that? It takes one idiot to commit an act of terrorism. The "war" against it doesn't have an end point and its ridiculous to say anyone has claimed it has been won.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xanathol View Post
So ill-informed ( not surprising ) or dishonest. As reported:

Quote:
The war on terror is over,” a senior official in the State Department official tells the National Journal. “Now that we have killed most of al Qaida, now that people have come to see legitimate means of expression, people who once might have gone into al Qaida see an opportunity for a legitimate Islamism.”

Checkmate.
Posts: 11,846
mikey23545 has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.mikey23545 has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.mikey23545 has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.mikey23545 has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.mikey23545 has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.mikey23545 has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.mikey23545 has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.mikey23545 has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.mikey23545 has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.mikey23545 has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.mikey23545 has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 02:23 PM   #41
BigChiefTablet BigChiefTablet is offline
Veteran
 

Join Date: Oct 2010
Casino cash: $27895
If it wasn't on HuffPo it didn't happen. /Cosmo
Posts: 1,830
BigChiefTablet 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliBigChiefTablet 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliBigChiefTablet 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliBigChiefTablet 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliBigChiefTablet 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliBigChiefTablet 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliBigChiefTablet 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliBigChiefTablet 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliBigChiefTablet 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliBigChiefTablet 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliBigChiefTablet 's adopt a chief was Sabby Piscitelli
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 02:26 PM   #42
Comrade Crapski Comrade Crapski is offline
Banned
 

Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Sea of Green 23.4°
Casino cash: $28270
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevieray View Post
...that is definitely an excellent "excuse" for all screw ups in the future.

Please don't ever quote that asshole in my thread again. I never would have seen his annoying stupid ass post.
Posts: 3,833
Comrade Crapski is too fat/Omaha.Comrade Crapski is too fat/Omaha.Comrade Crapski is too fat/Omaha.Comrade Crapski is too fat/Omaha.Comrade Crapski is too fat/Omaha.Comrade Crapski is too fat/Omaha.Comrade Crapski is too fat/Omaha.Comrade Crapski is too fat/Omaha.Comrade Crapski is too fat/Omaha.Comrade Crapski is too fat/Omaha.Comrade Crapski is too fat/Omaha.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 02:48 PM   #43
WhawhaWhat WhawhaWhat is offline
Veteran
 

Join Date: Feb 2013
Casino cash: $32101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Comrade Crapski View Post
Please don't ever quote that asshole in my thread again. I never would have seen his annoying stupid ass post.
I wonder what I was blocked for?
Posts: 3,639
WhawhaWhat 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliWhawhaWhat 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliWhawhaWhat 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliWhawhaWhat 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliWhawhaWhat 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliWhawhaWhat 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliWhawhaWhat 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliWhawhaWhat 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliWhawhaWhat 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliWhawhaWhat 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliWhawhaWhat 's adopt a chief was Sabby Piscitelli
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 03:14 PM   #44
cosmo20002 cosmo20002 is offline
Debunking your bullshit
 
cosmo20002's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: KC area
Casino cash: $121465
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xanathol View Post
So ill-informed ( not surprising ) or dishonest. As reported:
"a senior official" OK.
Posts: 17,312
cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 04:44 PM   #45
Loneiguana Loneiguana is offline
Veteran
 
Loneiguana's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Springfield
Casino cash: $32996
Republicans Altered Benghazi Emails, CBS News Report Claims
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3289428.html

"One day after The White House released 100 pages of Benghazi emails, a report has surfaced alleging that Republicans released a set with altered text.

CBS News reported Thursday that leaked versions sent out by the GOP last Friday had visible differences than Wednesday's official batch. Two correspondences that were singled out in the report came from National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes and State Department Spokeswoman Victoria Nuland.

The GOP version of Rhodes' comment, according to CBS News: "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."

The White House email: "We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation."

The GOP version of Nuland's comment, according to CBS News: The penultimate point is a paragraph talking about all the previous warnings provided by the Agency (CIA) about al-Qaeda's presence and activities of al-Qaeda."

The White House email: "The penultimate point could be abused by members to beat the State Department for not paying attention to Agency warnings."

The news parallels a Tuesday CNN report which initially introduced the contradiction between what was revealed in a White House Benghazi email version, versus what was reported in media outlets. On Monday, Mother Jones noted that the Republicans' interim report included the correct version of the emails, signaling that more malice and less incompetence may have been at play with the alleged alterations.

In that April interim report on Benghazi (which Buck noted), the House Republicans cited these emails (in footnotes 56 and 57) to note an important point: "State Department emails reveal senior officials had 'serious concerns' about the talking points, because Members of Congress might attack the State Department for 'not paying attention to Agency warnings' about the growing threat in Benghazi."
Despite the White House's Wednesday move to release emails, Republicans continued to call for more information on Thursday.

"While these hundred are good and they shed light on what happened, we have nearly 25,000 that they haven't released," Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) told Fox News on Thursday."
Posts: 3,607
Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.
  Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:11 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.