after meeting in private with 14 select media organizations on "deep background," jay carney was confronted yesterday with THIRTY SIX questions about this exploding scandal from the partisans in the press corps
ap: on benghazi, with all due credit to my colleague on my right (jonathan karl), we now have emails showing that the state dept pushed back against talking points language from the cia and expressed concern about how some of the information could be used politically in congress---you have said the white house only made a stylistic change here but these were not stylistic changes, these were content changes---so, again, what role did the white house play not just in making but in directing changes?
carney: the only edit made by the white house or the state dept to those talking points generated by the cia was a change from referring to the facility that was attacked in benghazi from consulate because it was not a consulate to diplomatic post, a matter of non substantive factual correction
ap followup: but this information was information that the cia obviously knew was about prior attacks and warnings---does the president think that it was appropriate to keep that information away simply because of how congress might use it
jeff zeleny: the substance of these emails tho suggests you're having very specific exchanges between state dept officials and an official here at the white house which jonathan uncovered in which a state dept official raises questions about providing talking points that would include a mention of al qaeda because of the concern that congress would use that against the state dept
zeleny a few seconds later interrupts carney who is reading to him: the emails specifically demonstrated a concern about giving members of congress something to use against the state dept
zeleny followup: that's not, that, i mean, the language of that email is pretty clear and the response is pretty clear in terms of saying we want to address victoria nuland's concerns---no matter who ended up providing the talking points in the end it certainly seems clear that there was an influence by the white house and the state dept on the cia talking points
zeleny again: was concern about how congress would react a factor in what went into those talking points as that email suggests
april ryan (american urban radio): since you say this is a minor change, a minor change in venue, that the wording is a change in venue, why such a big deal today with this deep background off-the-record briefing, makes it seem like there's been fuel added to the fire---if this is such a minor issue why not just tell the press like you did from the podium just a few minutes ago instead of having this background briefing with a select few and not the whole corps if it's such a minor issue
dan lothian, cnn: how do you go from a conversation that was apparently happening between various administration officials, various officials of this govt on sept 14, and in those emails, that email exchange, there is a discussion about a group, ansar al sharia, and then after victoria nuland raises questions on the part of the state dept, that reference to that group is then removed from the conversation and doesn't make its way into the talking points---that is not a stylistic edit, that is not single adjustment as you said back in november, that is a major dramatic change in the information
followup: but if you go back to what susan rice was talking about on those talk shows she may have left open the possibility of extremists but this is an altogether different thing when you talk about a specific group, ansar al sharia
cnn continues: but just a followup on this once and for all (carney: you promise once and for all; lothian: well, maybe not)---you are comfortable, you are still comfortable with the way you characterized this back in november---this was a single adjustment---and perhaps it was the cia that drafted these talking points but that's sorta glossing over the fact that you had all of these other parties invovled---these were not stylistic edits, jay, this is very much a content driven change
abc's man of the hour, jonathan karl: you told us that the only changes made to the talking points were stylistic, is it a stylistic change to take out all references to previous terror threats in benghazi
karl interrupts to ask: jay, this was not the change of one word to another, these were extensive changes after they were written by the cia---there were concerns that were raised by the state dept that the white house directed the interagency process used in making these talking points, the original version included references to al qaeda, references to ansar al sharia, the original cia version included extensive discussion of the previous threats and terrorist attacks in benghazi---these were taken out after the cia wrote its initial draft based on input from the state dept, do you deny that
carney: no (24:50)
karl: jay, if you come back to what you said, you said the only changes made by the white house were stylistic and a single word, what we see here is that the state dept raised objections about the references to ansar al sharia, they raised objections to the fact that the cia had warned about terror threats in benghazi prior to the attack---those subjects were taken out of the cia talking points at the direction of the white house based on objections from the state dept
karl: when you said what you said did you know that this had gone thru 12 versions and that there had been extensive changes made, were you aware of that at the time
kirsten welker, nbc: let me ask it in a slightly different way, do you acknowledge that your initial characterization of the white house involvement was to some extent a mischaracterization of the extent to which the white house was involved in the evolution of those talking points
helene cooper, nyt: why not come forward initially and say friday nite white house officials were involved in the interagency process that you've been describing, why not offer that information at the start
cooper: speaker boehner has asked that you release the emails and according to our sources house officials are also asking that they get more documentation about the saturday sept 15 meeting at the white house, will you release those additional emails and documents
peter baker, nyt: you said that republicans are being political about it, is it not also political to say we want to keep something out of these talking points because we might be criticized by members of congress, is that not a political motivation there
baker: but if the phrasing is say, let's not put this out because we're not sure it's true, the phrase is instead let's not put this out because we don't wanna be criticized by our political opponents, is that not political in itself
baker: on the backgrounder, you had earlier said, well everybody does it basically, republicans and democrats, everybody has backgrounders---you all came to town tho saying you were gonna be different, change the rule, be more transparent---don't you think it encourages the idea that you had something or your colleagues or whoever did the backgrounder, i wasn't there, had something to say they didn't want to say out here
baker: you haven't done that on the record, why do a backgrounder
baker: then what purpose is there doing a backgrounder
american urban radio: would you provide that information from the background in this briefing, do you think that you gave much of that information from the briefing, that background briefing today, in your briefing today, on the record
alexis simendinger, rcp: just overarching, looking back at... cuz a lot of us were in the briefing room with you the day after the attacks---is the president satisfied with the way the administration handled this, would you do anything differently, or would he want the administration to do anything differently, looking backward
rcp: following up on that, you talked right away about the video and i'm wondering when you were saying now that you didn't want to be speculative, some of us were wondering why you didn't just wait and say there was an investigation, so why are you saying the video discussion is not speculative
rcp: doesn't this series of emails now suggest that your discussion of the video was speculative, you are cherry picking
rcp: but today the president put out health care work that got wiped out because this has continued because that information was not put out
unidentified reporter: it seems like you're saying a couple different things, you're saying that the first iteration of the talking points that the cia drafted was what they thought happened and the last version was what they knew happened---by the nature of the cia signing off on each iteration of the talking points they were perfectly fine with members of congress or officials discussing anything they included in any of those versions that they signed off on---so why was it necessary, why was it deemed necessary to refer then back to not including certain information in the final draft if they were perfectly fine with that being put out
followup: but if it was improper for the cia to speculate about those things why would they sign off on the first version for others to review
followup: but the cia's not gonna spill secrets they're not comfortable with putting out there
another questioner unknown to me: it's coming up on 8 months to the day since the benghazi attack, the fbi's just got around to releasing 3 images of people they're looking for information for about perpetrators of the attack, is the president confident that the fbi is capable of solving and finding the perpetrators he said months ago was a priority for the president, is the president doing all in his power to do that as well
afp: you talked about the talking points being about what we knew or what the cia believed it knew---the first few drafts say we do know, we do know that islamic extremists with ties to al qaeda participated in the attack---this is not couched, it says we do know
carney: i direct you to the intelligence community
Full Video: Jay Carney Grilled About Benghazi At Friday Press Briefing | RealClearPolitics
1. do you know for whom these talking points were written, were intended?
2. darn those republicans
