Posted by Jack
Re White House and Amb. Susan Rice talking pointed scripted and heavily edited to avoid the (t) word …terror.
White House emails reviewed by ABC News suggest the edits were made with extensive input from the State Department. The edits included requests from the State Department that references to the Al Qaeda-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia be deleted as well references to CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack.
That would appear to directly contradict what White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said about the talking points in November.
“Those talking points originated from the intelligence community. They reflect the IC’s best assessments of what they thought had happened,” Carney told reporters at the White House press briefing on November 28, 2012. “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.”
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.
Like the final version used by Ambassador Rice on the Sunday shows, the CIA’s first drafts said the attack appeared to have been “spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo” but the CIA version went on to say, “That being said, we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.” The draft went on to specifically name the al Qaeda-affiliated group named Ansar al-Sharia.
Related: ABC News’ Chief White House Correspondent Jonathan Karl Answers Your Questions About Benghazi
Once again, Nuland objected to naming the terrorist groups because “we don’t want to prejudice the investigation.”
In response, an NSC staffer coordinating the review of the talking points wrote back to Nuland, “The FBI did not have major concerns with the points and offered only a couple minor suggestions.”
After the talking points were edited slightly to address Nuland’s concerns, she responded that changes did not go far enough.
“These changes don’t resolve all of my issues or those of my buildings leadership,” Nuland wrote.
In an email dated 9/14/12 at 9:34 p.m. — three days after the attack and two days before Ambassador Rice appeared on the Sunday shows – Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes wrote an email saying the State Department’s concerns needed to be addressed.
“We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don’t want to undermine the FBI investigation. We thus will work through the talking points tomorrow morning at the Deputies Committee meeting.”
Related: Diplomat Says Requests For Benghazi Rescue Were Rejected
After that meeting, which took place Saturday morning at the White House, the CIA drafted the final version of the talking points – deleting all references to al Qaeda and to the security warnings in Benghazi prior to the attack.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said none of this contradicts what he said about the talking points because ultimately all versions were actually written and signed-off by the CIA.
“The CIA drafted these talking points and redrafted these talking points,” Carney said. “The fact that there are inputs is always the case in a process like this, but the only edits made by anyone here at the White House were stylistic and nonsubstantive. They corrected the description of the building or the facility in Benghazi from consulate to diplomatic facility and the like. And ultimately, this all has been discussed and reviewed and provided in enormous levels of detail by the administration to Congressional investigators, and the attempt to politicize the talking points, again, is part of an effort to, you know, chase after what isn’t the substance here.”
UPDATE: A source familiar with the White House emails on the Benghazi talking point revisions say that State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland was raising two concerns about the CIA’s first version of talking points, which were going to be sent to Congress: 1) The talking points went further than what she was allowed to say about the attack during her state department briefings; and, 2) she believed the CIA was attempting to exonerate itself at the State Department’s expense by suggesting CIA warnings about the security situation were ignored.
In one email, Nuland asked, why are we suggest Congress “start making assertions to the media [about the al Qaeda connection] that we ourselves are not making because we don’t want to prejudice the investigation?”
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.
It’s about time! Even if it took ABC to bring everyone around.
You’ll love this.
Day in the Life of a Low-Info Voter: Benghazi Scandal!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=LFRtZEj5pwQ
Another jaw-dropper. Chris grab your crying towel!
MSNBC on Benghazi Cover Up: Looks “Clintonian”–There’s Risk of “Impeachment”:
“MSNBC bailing on the White House before more Benghazi secrets appear. “Looks terrible” indeed.”
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/greghengler/2013/05/10/msnbc-on-benghazi-cover-up-looks-clintoniantheres-risk-of-impeachment-n1592584
Rats deserting a sinking ship?
We now have proof that both Clinton and Obumble deliberately LIED to the American people for political expediency and a lust for power.
Believing any further statements coming from this white house only works if you believe in Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, Peter Pan or that the moon is made of green cheese.
J. Soden, Harriet, Pie, Harold, Peggy…thank you all for being intelligent and informed voters. You’ve been especially right-on and helpful this week!!! Really enjoyed your comments. -Jack
I thought it interesting how the Administration totally dismissed the President of Libyia saying that the attack was planned for September 12th had nothing to do with a video.
Susan Rice said “He was wrong” Good grief.
The poor guy in jail for making he video needs to be released.
Did you know two MSM and CNN have top CEOs with relatives working in the White House? Both CBS president David Rhodes and ABC president Ben Sherwood have siblings who work at the White House for the NSC that works on foreign policy. Also, CNN’s Virginia Mosley is married to Clinton’s deputy Tom Nides.
CNN forgot to mention bureau chief is married to Obama bigwig … Oops:
http://now.msn.com/virginia-moseley-new-cnn-bureau-chief-is-married-to-tom-nides-of-obama-administration
Lapdog media fail to report new CNN deputy bureau chief is married to a deputy secretary of state:
http://twitchy.com/2012/11/17/lapdog-media-fail-to-report-new-cnn-deputy-bureau-chief-is-married-to-a-deputy-secretary-of-state/
Top Obama official’s brother is president of CBS News, may drop reporter over Benghazi coverage:
http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/11/top-obama-officials-brother-is-president-of-cbs-news-may-drop-reporter-over-benghazi-coverage/#ixzz2T0rSvnmV
Sleeping With The Enemy: Media, Politicos, Once Adversaries, Now One Big Incestuous Circle:
http://www.mediaite.com/online/sleeping-with-the-enemy-media-politicos-once-adversaries-now-one-big-incestuous-circle/
Couldn’t find anything about Ben Sherwood’s family connection.
Wow…good find Peggy! Thanks.
NewsBusters:
Hear Diane Feinstein on Meet the Press this morning talking about Benghazi say, ”..the real time video which we’ve all seen….the Libya militia just disappeared…. these people just walked right in…”
What I’m hearing is there is video of the attack from the very beginning, not just from the dron/s that were flying over the Annex during the second attack. Am I wrong?
It’s on video #1 “disagree with conclusion” at 3.20 time.
Did she not just admit there was an on site video? What video? I remember Charlene Lamb talking about watching it in real time, but silence since.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3032608/vp/50215770#51858610
Here is Charlene Lamb’s House Oversight Committee testimony.
Page 5 paragraph one.
“When the attack began, a Diplomatic Security agent working in the Tactical Operations Center immediately activated the Imminent Danger Notification System and made an emergency announcement over the PA. Based on our security protocols, he also alerted the annex U.S. quick reaction security team stationed nearby, the Libyan 17th February Brigade, Embassy Tripoli, and the Diplomatic Security Command Center in Washington. From that point on, I could follow what was happening in almost real-time.”
http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/2012-10-09-Lamb-Testimony-FINAL1.pdf
So it turns out this entire story was wrong. We now know that Jon Karl lied when he said that ABC News had “reviewed” the e-mails. What he had actually obtained were summaries of the e-mails, which were inaccurate and out of context. Karl has since apologized and said he “regrets the error,” but he failed at basic journalistic integrity by claiming to have seen the e-mails–even providing what he indicated were direct quotes from the e-mails–when he was actually quoting a second-hand source.
The White House released the full e-mails Wednesday. I’m curious, why hasn’t that been reported by this blog? Is it because the e-mails contradict Karl’s claim that the talking points were changed primarily for political reasons, rather than concerns about tipping off terrorists? Or because every single version of the talking points mention the possibility of a spontaneous protest, inspired by the infamous anti-Islam video?
From CNN, which has obtained the *actual* White House e-mails:
“The actual e-mail from then-Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes appears to show that whomever leaked it did so in a way that made it appear that the White House was primarily concerned with the State Department’s desire to remove references and warnings about specific terrorist groups so as to not bring criticism to the department…
…Whoever provided those accounts seemingly invented the notion that Rhodes wanted the concerns of the State Department specifically addressed. While Nuland, particularly, had expressed a desire to remove mentions of specific terrorist groups and CIA warnings about the increasingly dangerous assignment, Rhodes put no emphasis at all in his e-mail on the State Department’s concerns.”
So it seems that Karl’s source had an agenda, and purposefully twisted the e-mails to say something they did not actually say.
Perhaps the reason the released e-mails haven’t been reported on here is because they totally contradict the “conspiracy” narrative you’ve been peddling since the day after the attack.
Perhaps it also explains why the mainstream media is usually so reluctant to follow up on stories perpetuated by right-wing media. Every time they do–from Shirley Sherrod, to the various James O’Keefe videos, to conspiracy theories about Benghazi–they get burned.