• 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!

Benghazi Bombshell: Leaked Emails Were Edited to Make Obama Look Bad [W:58]

Yeah, and I can repeat the MSM Fact Checkers that the President bears partial responsibility. Because he could have changed that. But didn't!
LOL The president doesn't control the funding, congress does.


So how could Obama have changed that, especially with a GOP congress that refuses to compromise on spending or anything that Obama tries to do?

Weeper of the House John Boehner say's No Compromise with Democrats - wtf - YouTube



Security for the State Department was under funded because of Republicans.
 
The inexperience of Obama in politics is starting to glow in the dark. He is in over his head and now is the time to turn up the volume and nail his ass to the floor ans assure Clinton cannot run in 2016.

Obama was over his head as soon as he had to take the oath of POTUS a second time on Inauguration Day back in January of 2009.

With in weeks I think Obama realised that the job of being President was bigger than he was.

Come on Democrats, a frickin community organiser as POTUS ???

Talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Maybe it was all about PC diversity ?
 
Obama was over his head as soon as he had to take the oath of POTUS a second time on Inauguration Day back in January of 2009.

With in weeks I think Obama realised that the job of being President was bigger than he was.

Come on Democrats, a frickin community organiser as POTUS ???

Talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Maybe it was all about PC diversity ?

Please stop trying to change the subject and hijack the thread.
 
Please stop trying to change the subject and hijack the thread.

Well the thread was on Emails.....after the deflection over what Congress and the President Did with Embassy Security Funding.. What happened to that?
 
Under funded, how? and by how much? Did they lay off people? Take a cut in pay? Was the under funding directed solely at the embassy? Maybe you can shed some like on this, from what I hear under oath that the decision to not provide added security had nothing to do with funding or not funding.

"In testimony Wednesday before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Charlene Lamb, a deputy assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security, was asked, “Was there any budget consideration and lack of budget which led you not to increase the number of people in the security force there?”

Lamb responded, “No, sir.”
Uhhhhh, the reason there wasn't enough security at Benghazi was because they didn't have enough people...and the reason they didn't have enough people was because THEY DIDN"T HAVE ENOUGH FUNDING!!!!

If you want to know specific details about the funding then I suggest you read MMC's Factcheck posts. Lord knows he's posted them on every thread about Benghazi. lol
 
Well the thread was on Emails.....after the deflection over what Congress and the President Did with Embassy Security Funding.. What happened to that?
Thats right the thread is about the Benghazi emails and not Obama's community organizing before he was president.
 
Thats right the thread is about the Benghazi emails and not Obama's community organizing before he was president.

Nor about Embassy Security Funding.....Right?
rolleyes.png
 
Please stop trying to change the subject and hijack the thread.

I didn't change the subject, there was no thread drift. My post was on topic. My post makes President Obama look bad.

>" Thread: Benghazi Bombshell: Leaked Emails Were Edited to Make Obama Look Bad [W:58] "<
 
Thats right the thread is about the Benghazi emails and not Obama's community organizing before he was president.

All of President Obama's incompetence's, failures, lies and dereliction of duty as Cn'C are directly related to Benghazi.

White House and State Department leaks of classified information, AP, IRS targeting conservatives and a You Tube video are all related to Benghazi.

Congress should open an investigation why the Democrat Party would allow a community organiser to run for President on the Democrat ticket.
 
Wow, so you "remembered" in post #28. Did you post a link to the clip you remembered? Do you remember the woman's name or what her position was? Do you remember why she was testifying? Do you remember what committee she was testifying to? No? NO???

Pffft....:roll:

Easy, girl. Deep breaths.
It was from October of 2012. It was Charlene Lamb, deputy assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security .
Lack of Budget Not a Factor in Benghazi Security Decisions - YouTube
 
I didn't change the subject, there was no thread drift. My post was on topic. My post makes President Obama look bad.

>" Thread: Benghazi Bombshell: Leaked Emails Were Edited to Make Obama Look Bad [W:58] "<

No, your post just makes you look bad.....

....“Flamebaiting” is making statements intended to cause an angry or emotional response/flame from the person. Another form of baiting is known as “derailing” or “thread-jacking”. This is deliberate act of making statements with an aim of diverting the topic of a thread significantly from its main focus. These negative forms of baiting constitute a rules violation that can potentially lead to a suspension of posting privileges.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/forum-rules/28594-forum-rules.html

...just sayin. ;)
 
Nor about Embassy Security Funding.....Right?
rolleyes.png

Benghazi was the direct result of Tea Party Occupation forces cuts in spending. They are responsible. Boehner should be investigated for his role to see if he had any contacts with the militants.
 
Benghazi was the direct result of Tea Party Occupation forces cuts in spending. They are responsible. Boehner should be investigated for his role to see if he had any contacts with the militants.

Nah.....this is repeated mistake by Democrats. One where they did the same exact thing. Then Spent money said they improved security and that such would never happen again. Now here we are over a decade in time and once again. Dealing with the mistakes of Democrats that get in power and get off into Foreign Affairs.

Last time it was Kenya. This Time it is Benghazi. Even the same Susan Rice on TV giving false information to the American people. Seems that Democrat history always catches up to them. Failures where the Big boyz play.
 
Benghazi was the direct result of Tea Party Occupation forces cuts in spending. They are responsible. Boehner should be investigated for his role to see if he had any contacts with the militants.

I thought you didn't trust Hillary's department. Make up your mind.

The fact is the GOP cut spending on security, on intelligence, on staff. They are responsible. Running a modern superpower isn't for amateurs like the tea party.

Already addressed and shown to be false by the original State investigation.:cool:
 
Benghazi was the direct result of Tea Party Occupation forces cuts in spending. They are responsible. Boehner should be investigated for his role to see if he had any contacts with the militants.

Now you're just being silly. Very.
 
Actually, HoJ is right.....



Yeah, they could check the DoJ tap logs of the House cloak room to see when Boehner spoke with the militants. :roll:
 
Now about those emails.....


".....The internal debate did not include political interference from the White House, according to the emails, which were provided to Congressional intelligence committees several months ago.,,,<snip>...

According to the emails and initial CIA-drafted talking points, the agency believed the attack included a mix of Islamist extremists from Ansar al-Sharia, an al-Qaeda affiliated group, and angry demonstrators.

White House officials did not challenge that analysis, the emails show.

But CIA Deputy Director Michael Morrell later removed the reference to Ansar al-Sharia because, senior administration officials said, the assessment was still classified and because FBI officials believed making the information public could compromise their investigation....<snip>......

The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence requested the talking points during a Sept. 14 briefing with then-CIA Director David H. Petraeus.....<snip>.....

The two agencies [State Dept. & CIA] had the most at stake in the Benghazi aftermath. The attacks targeted a State Department post and a CIA site, where a U.S.-effort to disarm Libya’s militia in the area was centered. Virtually no Americans were in the diplomatic post, only at the CIA site where the agency was responsible for security.

Senior administration officials said Wednesday that Morrell, who took the lead in editing the talking points drafted by the CIA’s director of of the Office of Terrorism Analysis, agreed with State Department concerns over including the warnings.

But Petraeus, Morrell’s boss at the time, appeared to have reservations about not including the warnings, which would have made the CIA look prescient at the State Department’s expense.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/05/15/benghazi-emails-released-by-white-house/


The CIA made the all the talking points at the request of congress.

The CIA edited the talking points and took out the part about the warnings at the request of the State Dept.

The State Dept objected to the inclusion of the warnings because it might compromise future DoJ trials and it also made them look responsible for the CIA's failure to heed the warnings and provide security for the compound.

General Petraus wanted the warnings included so congress would have some good talking points.

The only WH input in the talking points was to change "consulate" to "diplomatic location" because the compound was not a consulate but was in fact a diplomatic cover for the CIA annex. That might be why Stevens turned down the military's offer for more security....twice.

Congress recieved ALL the emails...all 100 of them months ago....but deliberately cherry picked and lied about the emails to make Obama and the State Dept and Hillary look bad.


The Benghazi tide has turned against the Republicans and Issa is trying to put on a new face. Don't let him.
 
Then there was this......

Petraeus email objected to Benghazi talking points.....

WASHINGTON (AP) - Then CIA-Director David Petraeus objected to the final talking points the Obama administration used after the deadly assault on a U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, because he wanted to see more details revealed to the public, according to emails released Wednesday by the White House.

Under pressure in the investigation that continues eight months after the attacks, the White House on Wednesday released 99 pages of emails and a single page of hand-written notes made by Petraeus' deputy, Mike Morell, after a meeting at the White House on Saturday, Sept. 15. On that page, Morell scratched out from the CIA's early drafts of talking points mentions of al-Qaida, the experience of fighters in Libya, Islamic extremists and a warning to the Cairo embassy on the eve of the attacks of calls for a demonstration and break-in by jihadists.

Petraeus apparently was displeased by the removal of so much of the material his analysts initially had proposed for release. The talking points were sent to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice to prepare her for an appearance on news shows on Sunday, Sept. 16, and also to members of the House Intelligence Committee.

"No mention of the cable to Cairo, either?" Petraeus wrote after receiving Morell's edited version, developed after an intense back-and-forth among Obama administration officials. "Frankly, I'd just as soon not use this, then."

The emails were partially blacked out, including removal of names of senders and recipients who are career employees at the CIA and elsewhere.

The emails show only minor edits were requested by the White House, and most of the objections came from the State Department. "The White House cleared quickly, but State has major concerns," read an email that a CIA official sent to Petraeus on Friday, Sept. 14.

Critics have highlighted an email by then-State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland that expressed concern that any mention of prior warnings or the involvement of al-Qaida would give congressional Republicans ammunition to attack the administration in the weeks before the presidential election. Fighting terror was one of President Barack Obama's re-election strong points

That email was among those released by the White House, sent by Nuland on Sept. 14 at 7:39 p.m. to officials in the White House, State Department and CIA. She wrote she was concerned they could prejudice the investigation and be "abused by members to beat the State Department for not paying attention to agency warnings so why do we want to feed that either? Concerned."

After Nuland sent several more emails throughout that Friday evening expressing further concerns, Jake Sullivan, then-deputy chief of staff at the State Department, said the issues would be worked out at a meeting at the White House on Saturday morning.

A senior U.S. intelligence official told reporters Wednesday that Morell made the changes to the talking points after that meeting because of his own concerns that they could prejudge an FBI investigation into who was responsible for the attacks.

The official said Morell also didn't think it was fair to disclose the CIA's advance warning without giving the State Department a chance to explain how it responded. The official spoke on a condition of anonymity without authorization to speak about the emails on the record. Petraeus declined to be interviewed Wednesday.

The intelligence official said Morell was aware of Nuland's objections but did not make the changes under pressure from the State Department but because he independently shared the concerns.

That is contradicted in an email sent to Rice on Saturday, Sept. 15, at 1:23 p.m. by a member of her staff whose name was blacked out. The email said Morell indicated he would work with Sullivan and Ben Rhodes, the White House deputy national security adviser, to revise the talking points. The intelligence official disputed that assertion and insisted Morell acted alone.

An email from Morell also says he spoke to Petraeus "about State's deep concerns about mentioning the warnings and the other work done on this."

But he added, "There are some things to criticize in here. The State Department looks like it is trying to avoid blame."

Read more: Petraeus email objected to Benghazi talking points - DC Breaking Local News Weather Sports FOX 5 WTTG
Follow us: @myfoxdc on Twitter | myfoxdc on Facebook
 
Then there was this......

Petraeus email objected to Benghazi talking points.....

WASHINGTON (AP) - Then CIA-Director David Petraeus objected to the final talking points the Obama administration used after the deadly assault on a U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, because he wanted to see more details revealed to the public, according to emails released Wednesday by the White House.

Under pressure in the investigation that continues eight months after the attacks, the White House on Wednesday released 99 pages of emails and a single page of hand-written notes made by Petraeus' deputy, Mike Morell, after a meeting at the White House on Saturday, Sept. 15. On that page, Morell scratched out from the CIA's early drafts of talking points mentions of al-Qaida, the experience of fighters in Libya, Islamic extremists and a warning to the Cairo embassy on the eve of the attacks of calls for a demonstration and break-in by jihadists.

Petraeus apparently was displeased by the removal of so much of the material his analysts initially had proposed for release. The talking points were sent to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice to prepare her for an appearance on news shows on Sunday, Sept. 16, and also to members of the House Intelligence Committee.

"No mention of the cable to Cairo, either?" Petraeus wrote after receiving Morell's edited version, developed after an intense back-and-forth among Obama administration officials. "Frankly, I'd just as soon not use this, then."

The emails were partially blacked out, including removal of names of senders and recipients who are career employees at the CIA and elsewhere.

The emails show only minor edits were requested by the White House, and most of the objections came from the State Department. "The White House cleared quickly, but State has major concerns," read an email that a CIA official sent to Petraeus on Friday, Sept. 14.

Critics have highlighted an email by then-State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland that expressed concern that any mention of prior warnings or the involvement of al-Qaida would give congressional Republicans ammunition to attack the administration in the weeks before the presidential election. Fighting terror was one of President Barack Obama's re-election strong points

That email was among those released by the White House, sent by Nuland on Sept. 14 at 7:39 p.m. to officials in the White House, State Department and CIA. She wrote she was concerned they could prejudice the investigation and be "abused by members to beat the State Department for not paying attention to agency warnings so why do we want to feed that either? Concerned."

After Nuland sent several more emails throughout that Friday evening expressing further concerns, Jake Sullivan, then-deputy chief of staff at the State Department, said the issues would be worked out at a meeting at the White House on Saturday morning.

A senior U.S. intelligence official told reporters Wednesday that Morell made the changes to the talking points after that meeting because of his own concerns that they could prejudge an FBI investigation into who was responsible for the attacks.

The official said Morell also didn't think it was fair to disclose the CIA's advance warning without giving the State Department a chance to explain how it responded. The official spoke on a condition of anonymity without authorization to speak about the emails on the record. Petraeus declined to be interviewed Wednesday.

The intelligence official said Morell was aware of Nuland's objections but did not make the changes under pressure from the State Department but because he independently shared the concerns.

That is contradicted in an email sent to Rice on Saturday, Sept. 15, at 1:23 p.m. by a member of her staff whose name was blacked out. The email said Morell indicated he would work with Sullivan and Ben Rhodes, the White House deputy national security adviser, to revise the talking points. The intelligence official disputed that assertion and insisted Morell acted alone.

An email from Morell also says he spoke to Petraeus "about State's deep concerns about mentioning the warnings and the other work done on this."

But he added, "There are some things to criticize in here. The State Department looks like it is trying to avoid blame."

Read more: Petraeus email objected to Benghazi talking points - DC Breaking Local News Weather Sports FOX 5 WTTG
Follow us: @myfoxdc on Twitter | myfoxdc on Facebook
I'll give you this much. While you are consistently better informed than those you debate and able to demonstrate that, debunking them at every turn, you can't shake a zealot from their ideological fervor. As you can see, we have a number of well known (to members as well as staff) Energizer Bunnies, who no matter what you expose to them to or how often you prove that the "information" they are using is lacking any intellectual veracity or credibility? Well, you know. They just keep going and going...........
 
That email was among those released by the White House, sent by Nuland on Sept. 14 at 7:39 p.m. to officials in the White House, State Department and CIA. She wrote she was concerned they could prejudice the investigation and be "abused by members to beat the State Department for not paying attention to agency warnings so why do we want to feed that either? Concerned."

FOX 5
Follow us: @myfoxdc on Twitter | myfoxdc on Facebook
Achem.....um...that is not what was written in the original email, that is from an altered email.
 
Achem.....um...that is not what was written in the original email, that is from an altered email.

Not according to the Washington AP it isn't.....snip~ from above

WASHINGTON (AP) -That email was among those released by the White House, sent by Nuland on Sept. 14 at 7:39 p.m. to officials in the White House, State Department and CIA. She wrote she was concerned they could prejudice the investigation and be "abused by members to beat the State Department for not paying attention to agency warnings so why do we want to feed that either? Concerned."


Jonathan Karl Exposes the Role of Victoria Nuland and Jay Carney in the Spreading of Lies

Next, Karl presents the most shocking e-mail released so far: one from State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland, who lets others in her shop know why the truth must be kept under wraps. Karl writes:

Summaries of White House and State Department emails — some of which were first published by Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard — show that the State Department had extensive input into the editing of the talking points.

State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland raised specific objections to this paragraph drafted by the CIA in its earlier versions of the talking points:

“The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al-Qa’ida in Benghazi and eastern Libya. These noted that, since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador’s convoy. We cannot rule out the individuals has previously surveilled the U.S. facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks.”

In an email to officials at the White House and the intelligence agencies, State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland took issue with including that information because it “could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either? Concerned …”

The paragraph was entirely deleted. (my emphasis)

Later, Nuland also told others not to name any terrorist groups, as the CIA reports had done, because “we don’t want to prejudice the investigation.” How, one wonders, is letting all the facts be presented prejudicial in any way to finding out what happened? When changes were made that did not satisfy her, Nuland referred to the latest version as not satisfying “my building’s leadership.”

Having ran a solid report the other day, despite taking out a main portion of the first version of its story, the New York Times editors weighed in today on what they make of it. In an editorial they titled “The Republicans’ Benghazi Obsession,” the editors wrote that the hearings “have long given way to conspiracy-mongering and a relentless effort to discredit President Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.” The editors conclude: “The hearing did not prove anything like an administration cover-up or other hysterical allegations of crimes equal to Watergate that some Republicans, such as Representative Steve King and Senator Lindsey Graham, have alleged.” They would prefer, as they write, that Americans leave well enough alone and stop at the weak Mullen committee report that reached its conclusions before all the facts were out.

With the media finally taking a hard look, expect more sighs of disappointment from the editors of the New York Times.

UPDATE:

In yet another change of heart, the BBC North American editor now says “hard evidence” has led him to re-evaluate Benghazi. He writes:

This is the first hard evidence that the state department did ask for changes to the CIA’s original assessment.

Specifically, they wanted references to previous warnings deleted and this sentence removed: “We do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.”

There’s little doubt in my mind that this will haunt Hillary Clinton if she decides to run for president, unless she executes some pretty fancy footwork.

State department spokesperson Victoria Nuland is directly implicated, and the fingerprints of senior White House aides Ben Rhodes and Jay Carney are there as well.....snip~

Jonathan Karl Exposes the Role of Victoria Nuland and Jay Carney in the Spreading of Lies
 
Back
Top Bottom