Page 16 of 21 FirstFirst ... 61415161718 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 201

Thread: Issa's Benghazi narrative falling apart

  1. #151
    Sage
    poweRob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    34,784

    Re: Issa's Benghazi narrative falling apart

    Quote Originally Posted by Dickieboy View Post
    But really consider (from another thread):



    reference:
    Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 05/10/2013 | The White House
    They paraphrased it in a manner that made it patently false. It was twisted not in a way to protect them from copying verbatim but to shine it in a light that pushed the narrative they wanted. Of course they couldn't verbatim the whole email... but the parts they took, they could've been at least accurate.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moderate Right View Post
    The sad fact is that having a pedophile win is better than having a Democrat in office. I'm all for a solution where a Republican gets in that isn't Moore.

  2. #152
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    07-25-17 @ 12:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    5,878

    Re: Issa's Benghazi narrative falling apart

    Quote Originally Posted by poweRob View Post
    They paraphrased it in a manner that made it patently false. It was twisted not in a way to protect them from copying verbatim but to shine it in a light that pushed the narrative they wanted. Of course they couldn't verbatim the whole email... but the parts they took, they could've been at least accurate.
    Subjectively it didn't look 'patently false' to me other than NOT being verbatim. Could you point out the specifics that I may have missed?
    "The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure" - 2006 Senator Obama...leadership failure indeed!

  3. #153
    Sage

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

    Re: Issa's Benghazi narrative falling apart

    Quote Originally Posted by poweRob View Post
    Who gives a rats ass
    Full Video: Jay Carney Grilled About Benghazi At Friday Press Briefing | RealClearPolitics

    a week ago, after meeting in private with 14 select media organizations on "deep background," jay carney was confronted 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. for exactly whom were the talking points intended?

    2. darn that glenn beck

  4. #154
    Sage

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

    Re: Issa's Benghazi narrative falling apart

    They paraphrased it
    The Benghazi revisions, revisited - POLITICO.com

    if you linked more it would force you to know what you're talking about

  5. #155
    Battle Ready
    Grim17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Southwestern U.S.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    24,117
    Blog Entries
    20

    Re: Issa's Benghazi narrative falling apart

    With regards to the topic of this thread, I think Bob Woodward of Watergate fame, summed it up best on Meet The Press:


  6. #156
    Sage

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

    Re: Issa's Benghazi narrative falling apart

    the white house has a slightly different take

    White House officials on Benghazi: We're the idiots - CBS News

  7. #157
    Sage
    Fenton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:20 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,211

    Re: Issa's Benghazi narrative falling apart

    Quote Originally Posted by NIMBY View Post
    As with repubLies and Oids
    This is about the Lies of the Obama administration, not warmed over talking points from Obama supporting hypocrites who's best rebut is to bring up his predecessor.

    I'm sure Issa's really intimidated by the WH and Democrats that wish this would just go away.

    According to the " low level front line " employees in Cincinnatti, NOTHING happens there with out a directive from " the top" and the wheels should completely come off the White Houses Benghazi lie by the 2014 election.

    Can't say we didn't warn you guys.

  8. #158
    Sage

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

    Re: Issa's Benghazi narrative falling apart

    cincy irs workers: "we simply did what our bosses ordered"

    Cincy IRS workers: we did what we were told - FOX19-Cincinnati News

    seeya at the hearings, homer

  9. #159
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Issa's Benghazi narrative falling apart

    Quote Originally Posted by poweRob View Post
    So Glenn Beck used his website theBlaze to say that the administration lied about calling Benghazi a act of terrorism. He called it an act of terror so this boils down to Glenn Beck, that WP guy and you whining about the differences between saying "Act of Terror" and "Act of Terrorism." Who gives a rats ass other than the after-birthers?

    No it wasn't Glen Beck, it was the Washington Post. Beck was only quoting the Post, as the link made clear.

    In fact Obama says he called it terrorism, then said he didn't know if it was terrorism, then called it terrorism again.

  10. #160
    Sage
    jmotivator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    12-09-17 @ 08:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,619

    Re: Issa's Benghazi narrative falling apart

    Quote Originally Posted by The Prof View Post
    The Benghazi revisions, revisited - POLITICO.com

    if you linked more it would force you to know what you're talking about
    Yeah, the overzealous left needs to be careful how they argue this since the original version of the statement targeted the State Department specifically while the version they are now touting is more general about who was calling for the edits, reopening the possibility that the White House was also involved.

Page 16 of 21 FirstFirst ... 61415161718 ... 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
  •