• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Talking Points Underwent 12 Revisions, Scrubbed of Terror Reference

I guess as a strategy to push Benghazi past the election it worked well, but is was so flimsy and based on so may lies that they needed a fully compliant media wing to pull it off.
I had been following the story and happened to see her on Meet the Press. Couldn't believe what was coming out of her mouth - but any surprise I had there paled in comparison to the shock I had over the press response to the attacks (and to the WH narrative) - and that's really saying something since I had a pretty low regard for them to begin with. "Fully compliant" is right - to the point of publishing WH talking points as news.
 
Re: Benghazi Talking points went through 12 revisions at State Dept.

The thing that will be most interesting is what Hillary does when she is backed into a corner. The testimony and the ABC report may have effectively backed he into that corner at this point, and we know that she and Bill hate Obama with a white hot passion, and Obama is still floating above this because nobody has asked the questions, and the President has gone to silent running. She could easily tell everything she knows about Obama's involvement simply to drag him down.

Hell, if she could pin this on Obama it would be a race between her and Joe "F**king" Biden in the 2016 primaries.

As I see it, at this point there are four scenarios that are equally likely regarding Obama involvement: Either he was involved in the decision making process of Benghazi, or he wasn't, and he was involved in the heavy editing of the talking points or he wasn't. As the Commander in Chief, any of the four combinations is damning. He is either complicit or utterly incompetent, or some combination of the two.
 
Re: Benghazi Talking points went through 12 revisions at State Dept.

The thing that will be most interesting is what Hillary does when she is backed into a corner.
If the past provides any indication, we'll be hearing a lot of:

"Not that I remember, I mean I certainly don't think so"
"I have no specific recollection"
"I would have no way of remembering that"
"I honestly don't recall"
"I might have, but I really can't say"
"I don't have direct knowledge of that"
"WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE!"
 
Re: Benghazi Talking points went through 12 revisions at State Dept.

If the past provides any indication, we'll be hearing a lot of:

"Not that I remember, I mean I certainly don't think so"
"I have no specific recollection"
"I would have no way of remembering that"
"I honestly don't recall"
"I might have, but I really can't say"
"I don't have direct knowledge of that"
"WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE!"


I don't think she was sufficiently backed into a corner in that testimony. The hearing did not have access to the damning information that is now a matter of public record regarding the State Department's and Jay Carney's outright lies to the American people.
 
Re: Benghazi Talking points went through 12 revisions at State Dept.

Oh, I'm not saying she won't run, but the DNC would rather she not at this point.

"What difference does it make!" is the sound clip that will keep on giving.

hillary-thenandnow.jpg
 
Presidential Candidate won't voluntarily release decades of tax returns.....response: He'd show us or he's hiding something! Maybe a felony! We'll demand the returns for the next few months. This is IMPORTANT, he's trying to be the leader of our country, we have to know!

President and Administration stone walling attempts to look into an incident resulting in death of civilian diplomatic personnel and military personnel....response: What difference does it make? This is a witch hunt. Let it go. Death is a part of life. Just move on, this is pure politics.
 
It's the lies that were told to cover up the lies that usually get scumbags like Obama and Hillary busted.

I can think of actual crimes like Obstruction and perjury thhat these morons are guilty of.

Hillary lied to the face of that Seals Father. Lied to the Comittee.

Unbelievable.
 
Re: Benghazi Talking points went through 12 revisions at State Dept.


I realize nobody will read this because its from Media Matters, but he goes any way:

ABC's "Exclusive" Benghazi Report Shows Nothing New | Blog | Media Matters for America

ABC News is buying into right-wing scandal mongering over the tragic September 2012 attacks on a U.S. diplomatic facility in Benghazi, Libya, with an "exclusive" report that doesn't stand up to minimal scrutiny, with flaws that are being used by the right to call for a major investigation.

The so-called "exclusive" report, posted at ABCNews.com, purports to uncover dramatic new developments in the right wing's Benghazi witch hunt, but in reality it is little more than a rehash of previously covered debates over whose input was given to the early draft of intelligence talking points put together in the early days of the investigation into the attacks. None of this largely rehashed debate disproves what Gen. David Petraeus, former head of the Central Intelligence Agency, testified in November: that the intelligence community signed off on the final draft of the talking points, and that references to terrorist groups in Libya were removed in order to avoid tipping off those groups.

The May 10 ABC News report focuses on the much discussed CIA talking points that were prepared in the days immediately after the September 11, 2012, attack, and which were used by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice in her appearance on several news programs to discuss those attacks. Nothing in the ABC News report focuses on the actual events of September 11, 2012, only on the editing process of a talking points memo and what information should be made available for public dissemination during an ongoing investigation into a terrorist attack:​

How embarrassing for ABC News.
 
I realize nobody will read this because its from Media Matters, but he goes any way:


ABC's "Exclusive" Benghazi Report Shows Nothing New | Blog | Media Matters for America

ABC News is buying into right-wing scandal mongering over the tragic September 2012 attacks on a U.S. diplomatic facility in Benghazi, Libya, with an "exclusive" report that doesn't stand up to minimal scrutiny, with flaws that are being used by the right to call for a major investigation.

The so-called "exclusive" report, posted at ABCNews.com, purports to uncover dramatic new developments in the right wing's Benghazi witch hunt, but in reality it is little more than a rehash of previously covered debates over whose input was given to the early draft of intelligence talking points put together in the early days of the investigation into the attacks. None of this largely rehashed debate disproves what Gen. David Petraeus, former head of the Central Intelligence Agency, testified in November: that the intelligence community signed off on the final draft of the talking points, and that references to terrorist groups in Libya were removed in order to avoid tipping off those groups.

The May 10 ABC News report focuses on the much discussed CIA talking points that were prepared in the days immediately after the September 11, 2012, attack, and which were used by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice in her appearance on several news programs to discuss those attacks. Nothing in the ABC News report focuses on the actual events of September 11, 2012, only on the editing process of a talking points memo and what information should be made available for public dissemination during an ongoing investigation into a terrorist attack:​

How embarrassing for ABC News.

Still siding with the low life scum POS Obama administration ?

Patreaus testified that he knew it was a terrosit attack IMMEDIATELY.

E-Mails sent from the State Dept to Lybia on Sept 12 stated they KNEW it was a terroist attack.

How embarassing for you, to ignore the 12 rewrites by the State Dept and to ignore the E-mail from Crowley that any mention of the TRUTH would allow Congress to beat up on the State Dept.

How much did you get when you sold out and semblance of integrity and character to back this corrupt adminiztration ?

A nickel ?
 
Re: Benghazi Talking points went through 12 revisions at State Dept.

I realize nobody will read this because its from Media Matters, but he goes any way:

ABC's "Exclusive" Benghazi Report Shows Nothing New | Blog | Media Matters for America

ABC News is buying into right-wing scandal mongering over the tragic September 2012 attacks on a U.S. diplomatic facility in Benghazi, Libya, with an "exclusive" report that doesn't stand up to minimal scrutiny, with flaws that are being used by the right to call for a major investigation.

The so-called "exclusive" report, posted at ABCNews.com, purports to uncover dramatic new developments in the right wing's Benghazi witch hunt, but in reality it is little more than a rehash of previously covered debates over whose input was given to the early draft of intelligence talking points put together in the early days of the investigation into the attacks. None of this largely rehashed debate disproves what Gen. David Petraeus, former head of the Central Intelligence Agency, testified in November: that the intelligence community signed off on the final draft of the talking points, and that references to terrorist groups in Libya were removed in order to avoid tipping off those groups.

The May 10 ABC News report focuses on the much discussed CIA talking points that were prepared in the days immediately after the September 11, 2012, attack, and which were used by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice in her appearance on several news programs to discuss those attacks. Nothing in the ABC News report focuses on the actual events of September 11, 2012, only on the editing process of a talking points memo and what information should be made available for public dissemination during an ongoing investigation into a terrorist attack:​

How embarrassing for ABC News.



What a waste that was. The administration omitted the discussion of the terrorists involved and the statement that they had prior warning, and the ABC report and the emails clearly show that the removal of the Al Qaeda references was not because of a CIA investigation, it was done for political reasons.

How embarrassing for Media Matters.

Or... it would be embarrassing if they had an ounce of integrity.
 
Still siding with the low life scum POS Obama administration ?

Patreaus testified that he knew it was a terrosit attack IMMEDIATELY.

E-Mails sent from the State Dept to Lybia on Sept 12 stated they KNEW it was a terroist attack.

How embarassing for you, to ignore the 12 rewrites by the State Dept and to ignore the E-mail from Crowley that any mention of the TRUTH would allow Congress to beat up on the State Dept.

How much did you get when you sold out and semblance of integrity and character to back this corrupt adminiztration ?

A nickel ?

Yes, he did, but he also said something else:


Petraeus Says U.S. Tried to Avoid Tipping Off Terrorists After Libya Attack
 
Re: Benghazi Talking points went through 12 revisions at State Dept.

What a waste that was. The administration omitted the discussion of the terrorists involved and the statement that they had prior warning, and the ABC report and the emails clearly show that the removal of the Al Qaeda references was not because of a CIA investigation, it was done for political reasons.

How embarrassing for Media Matters.

Or... it would be embarrassing if they had an ounce of integrity.

Well you are wrong see my last post.;)
 
Re: Benghazi Talking points went through 12 revisions at State Dept.

Well you are wrong see my last post.;)

I've already addressed that. The Petraeus statement only partially answer part of the trouble that the State Department is in, and doesn't jibe with the State Department emails released yesterday that make NO mention of the Al Qaeda reference being cut for purposes of an investigation. In those emails the State Department is only worried about the inclusion of that information being used against them politically.

So we are left with having to jibe the two disparate stories... one in which the CIA released information to State that they later didn't want state to release (still no evidence of that request), versus email evidence of the State Department communications leading up to the editing wanting to edit that passage out for political reasons.

Media Matters does nothing to jibe those two stories either, they simply take the story most beneficial to the Administration that is still not documented and procede from the groundless assumption that it is unassailable truth. The reason this is a story is because THE EVIDENCE NOW RUNS COUNTER TO THE ADMINISTRATION'S STORY.
 
Re: Benghazi Talking points went through 12 revisions at State Dept.

abc updated this story this afternoon:

Exclusive: Benghazi Talking Points Underwent 12 Revisions, Scrubbed of Terror Reference - ABC News

One other point: The significant edits – deleting references to al Qaeda and the CIA’s warnings – came after a White House meeting on the Saturday before Ambassador Susan Rice appeared on five Sunday shows. Nuland, a 30-year foreign service veteran who has served under Democratic and Republican Secretaries of State, was not at that meeting and played no direct role in preparing Rice for her interviews.

victoria nuland is for the state dept what jay carney is for the white house generally, a press spokesperson

ms nuland is the staffer most responsible for scrubbing the talking points, which is kinda odd cuz her job title is so exclusively political

this scrub was accomplished in a frantic back and forth (laid out be jonathan karl and stephen hayes and leaked by evil darrell issa) in the final 24 hours before susan-rice-sunday, which was 9-16-12

we also know that when ms nuland, on behalf of her "building's leadership," effected the edits, the final product STILL did not mention the video which ms rice made the primary point of most her talking as she raced around the 5-show circuit that historic morning

well, what mr karl is reporting here in his update is that, tho she was responsible for deleting the words islamic extremists and al qaeda and ansar al sharia and jihad, while removing all mention of the 5 serious terrorist acts in the city in the months leading up, victoria nuland was NOT present on the sunday morning, 9-16, on which un ambassador susan rice was briefed for her talk show tour

exactly WHO directed ms rice to talk so much about the video that historic sunday?

mr karl is certainly curious, he's a reporter

stay tuned
 
Re: Benghazi Talking points went through 12 revisions at State Dept.

drip drip.
 
Back
Top Bottom