Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 22

Thread: Benghazi e-mails show clash between State Department, CIA

  1. #11
    Sage
    pbrauer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    11-27-15 @ 03:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,394

    Re: Benghazi e-mails show clash between State Department, CIA

    Quote Originally Posted by DiAnna View Post
    I don't see anyone being thrown under the bus by Obama. By republicans trying to place the blame for a terrorist attack... one of three that were happening simultaneously that night... by trying to turn confusion and bureaucratic stumbling in the early days of a crisis into a smear job that they hope will prevent Hillary's nomination in 2016.

    **** happens. I guaran-damn-tee that both democrats and republicans in the CIA, the DOS and other agencies involved in trying to figure out what happened in a place that American investigators were not allowed access to were involved in those 12 drafts that were prepared in the first few days after the attacks.

    This kind of rampant speculation, ignoring inconvient facts while manipulating more "favorable" facts... this is the kind of crap I heard by the "Hillary is just pretending to have a blood clot on the brain so she can avoid testifying" crowd.

    What congress should be doing is seriously working together to see where the mistakes were made in embassy security, and plug the holes. Was bad intelligence to blame? Was the intelligence about the danger good, but it never got to the right people? But no... this has become a massive partsian "gotcha" while congress-critters beat their chest and point their fingers. And you know what, folks? The mistakes that led to the lack of proper security still exist, because congress has been completely focused only on their own political games.

    Bah. We should disband the entire government and build a new one, where politicians are NOT allowed to apply.
    Great post DiAnna, I tin Washington has gotten too partisan for its and our own good.The Benghazi hearings was just another attempt by Issa to bring down Obama (and Hillary).

  2. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Behind the Orange Curtain
    Last Seen
    01-30-15 @ 01:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    15,633

    Re: Benghazi e-mails show clash between State Department, CIA

    Quote Originally Posted by trfjr View Post
    So the question is whose side will you take when the bell rings team Obama or team Hillary. So what is more important to you Obamas reputation and legacy or Hillary running for President?
    That's the question that most Democrats are asking themselves.

    Myself, I'm just an American who wants to hear the truth and want justice, it's the American way or it use to be.

    BTW: Obama and his administration lost all credibility when it comes to the truth many years ago.

  3. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Denio Junction
    Last Seen
    11-13-14 @ 12:09 AM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    7,039
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Benghazi e-mails show clash between State Department, CIA

    Isn't it kind of hard to fix the problem when the administration refuses to admit a problem. I heard Carney on Friday say out loud they would handle it all the same way if they could do it again. Hard to fix stupid when they just lie thru their teeth and cry partisan bickering when you call them on it.

    Who, what person, decided to claim it was a video and spontaneous riot instead of al queda. Is that so secret we can't know? Obama knows. Then can we just ask them why? Is that all really so hard?


    Quote Originally Posted by DiAnna View Post
    Again, it's all partisian to you. I'd like to know where the problems were so they can, you know, actually be fixed. Fixing the problems is NOT a priority with this congress. Laying blame is the priority... with you as well, apparently.

  4. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Last Seen
    12-08-13 @ 10:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    3,114

    Re: Benghazi e-mails show clash between State Department, CIA

    Quote Originally Posted by DiAnna View Post
    Again, it's all partisian to you. I'd like to know where the problems were so they can, you know, actually be fixed. Fixing the problems is NOT a priority with this congress. Laying blame is the priority... with you as well, apparently.
    They are in the process of fixing the problem. The problem is this Administration they just need to know who needs to take the responsibility for it

  5. #15
    Dungeon Master
    Hooter Babe

    DiAnna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Northern California
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,597
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Benghazi e-mails show clash between State Department, CIA

    Quote Originally Posted by trfjr View Post
    They are in the process of fixing the problem. The problem is this Administration they just need to know who needs to take the responsibility for it


    Yeah, nothing partisian about that.

  6. #16
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: Benghazi e-mails show clash between State Department, CIA

    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
    Last edited by The Prof; 05-12-13 at 02:43 AM.

  7. #17
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:03 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,460

    Re: Benghazi e-mails show clash between State Department, CIA

    News flash.....


  8. #18
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:32 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,293

    Re: Benghazi e-mails show clash between State Department, CIA

    Quote Originally Posted by DiAnna View Post


    Yeah, nothing partisian about that.
    Someone got partisan when they decided they would do anything to get re-elected, including trying to minimize Benghazi from Day One.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  9. #19
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:32 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,293

    Re: Benghazi e-mails show clash between State Department, CIA

    Quote Originally Posted by DiAnna View Post
    I don't see anyone being thrown under the bus by Obama. By republicans trying to place the blame for a terrorist attack... one of three that were happening simultaneously that night... by trying to turn confusion and bureaucratic stumbling in the early days of a crisis into a smear job that they hope will prevent Hillary's nomination in 2016.

    **** happens. I guaran-damn-tee that both democrats and republicans in the CIA, the DOS and other agencies involved in trying to figure out what happened in a place that American investigators were not allowed access to were involved in those 12 drafts that were prepared in the first few days after the attacks.

    This kind of rampant speculation, ignoring inconvient facts while manipulating more "favorable" facts... this is the kind of crap I heard by the "Hillary is just pretending to have a blood clot on the brain so she can avoid testifying" crowd.

    What congress should be doing is seriously working together to see where the mistakes were made in embassy security, and plug the holes. Was bad intelligence to blame? Was the intelligence about the danger good, but it never got to the right people? But no... this has become a massive partsian "gotcha" while congress-critters beat their chest and point their fingers. And you know what, folks? The mistakes that led to the lack of proper security still exist, because congress has been completely focused only on their own political games.

    Bah. We should disband the entire government and build a new one, where politicians are NOT allowed to apply.
    People don't become politicians until they're elected.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  10. #20
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: Benghazi e-mails show clash between State Department, CIA

    why do you talk so much and read so little, isn't that backwards, won't this upside-down nature of your output vs input ratio ensure you remain stupid?

    why would you presume that anyone (other than your mother) could possibly be interested in your mere unsourced opinions, isn't such an inflated self view narcissistic?

    the new yorker:

    It’s a cliché, of course, but it really is true: in Washington, every scandal has a crime and a coverup. The ongoing debate about the attack on the United States facility in Benghazi where four Americans were killed, and the Obama Administration’s response to it, is no exception. For a long time, it seemed like the idea of a coverup was just a Republican obsession. But now there is something to it.

    On Friday, ABC News’s Jonathan Karl revealed the details of the editing process for the C.I.A.’s talking points about the attack, including the edits themselves and some of the reasons a State Department spokeswoman gave for requesting those edits. It’s striking to see the twelve different iterations that the talking points went through before they were released to Congress and to United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice, who used them in Sunday show appearances that became a central focus of Republicans’ criticism of the Administration’s public response to the attacks. Over the course of about twenty-four hours, the remarks evolved from something specific and fairly detailed into a bland, vague mush.

    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.”

    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.”

    Remarkably, Carney is sticking with that line even now. In his regular press briefing on Friday afternoon (a briefing that was delayed several times, presumably in part so the White House could get its spin in order, but also so that it could hold a secretive pre-briefing briefing with select members of the White House press corps), he said:

    "The only edit made by the White House or the State Department to those talking points generated by the C.I.A. was a change from referring to the facility that was attacked in Benghazi from 'consulate,' because it was not a consulate, to 'diplomatic post'… it was a matter of non-substantive factual correction."

    This is an incredible thing for Carney to be saying. He’s playing semantic games, telling a roomful of journalists that the definition of editing we’ve all been using is wrong, that the only thing that matters is who’s actually working the keyboard. It’s not quite re-defining the word “is,” or the phrase “sexual relations,” but it’s not all that far off, either.
    Spinning Benghazi: The C.I.A.'s Talking-Point Edits : The New Yorker

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •