Benghazi Talking Points Underwent 12 Revisions, Scrubbed of Terror Reference

Benghazi Talking Points Underwent 12 Revisions, Scrubbed of Terror Reference

abcnews.go.c om

When it became clear last fall that the CIA’s now discredited Benghazi talking points were flawed, the White House said repeatedly the documents were put together almost entirely by the intelligence community, but White House documents reviewed by Congress suggest a different story.

ABC News has obtained 12 different versions of the talking points that show they were extensively edited as they evolved from the drafts first written entirely by the CIA to the final version distributed to Congres

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.abovetopsecret.com
thehill. com
www.huffingtonpost.com
www.nationalreview.com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
What exactly was "covered up" in Benghazi?
Proof that all the outrage about Benghazi is fake and manufactured
White House: Clinton’s 'Signature' on Benghazi Docs Doesn't Mean She Knew of Them

The revelation of the dozen changes to the original CIA public statement to the final State Department "talking points" makes clear the utter and flagrant deception of the Obama White House and State Department.

Clinton clearly is caught up in this as well.

The most immediate take-away is that Obama's would-be Sec. of State Rice was a liar, adding in a reference to a video that appears nowhere in either document. The other is that the Obama administration and had deeper and better understanding of the true nature of the attack than they were willing to reveal to theAmerican public or the world, until forced to, and then only picemeal and reluctantly.

abcnews.go.c om
(visit the link for the full news article)

I too have been following the info available about the talking points. If damage control does not start to do a better job there goes Hilary's bid for being the first female president.....maybe not..... short memories and attention span may take over in 2016; vote the party line regardless of ......?

S&F

I'm watching Carney twist himself into a 5th dimensional trapezoid explaining this right now.



Epic.

Fail.

Compare the initial CIA public statement and compare to what we and the world were told, and see if you can see the difference.

Here's the initial version

Friday, September 14th 2012, 11:15 a.m.
• We believe based on currently available information that the attacks in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex.

• The crowd almost certainly was a mix of individuals from across many sectors of Libyan society. That being said, we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa'ida participated in the attack.

• Initial press reporting linked the attack to Ansar al-Sharia. The group has since released a statement that its leadership did not order the attacks, but did not deny that some of its members were involved. Ansar al-Sharia's Facebook page aims to spread Sharia in Libya and emphasizes the need for jihad to counter what it views as false interpretations of Islam, according to an open source study.

• The wide availability of weapons and experienced fighters in Libya almost certainly contribute to the lethality of the attacks.

• 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.

• We are working w/ Libyan authorities and intelligence partners in an effort to help bring to justice those responsible for the deaths of U.S. citizens.

abcnews.go.com...

Here's what we were told:

Saturday, September 15th
• The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were
spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a
direct assault against the U.S. diplomatic post Consulate and subsequently its annex.
There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.
• This assessment may change as additional information is collected and analyzed and
currently available information continues to be evaluated.
• The investigation is ongoing, md the U.S. Government is working w/ Libyan authorities
to help bring to justice those responsible for the deaths of U.S. citizens.

Can you see any difference?
Do you see any reference to a YouTube video in either one?

Even though the initial CIA report clearly could not be expected to reveal all of the classified information known or suspected, can anyone think of an excuse to so utterly strip the report of all references to terror/AlQaida and "warnings," other than to cover up State Department and Obama White House failures to defend and protect the consulate in the face of prior threats and attacks?

jw

The Benghazi issue is the true reason why there has been such a huge governmental grab on ammo.....Once Obama is forced to leave office, which this will situation will make it possible, the black community is going to revolt, and revolt BIG TIME. Mark my words.

Sooner or later that realization will come, like a thousand stings, followed by that sinking feeling in the gut, then the wost, the overwhelming mix of fear and regret...

Can't stop it now, any more than you can stop what could come next...

reply to post by beezzer


Carney's own words were:

The only edit made by the White House or the State Department to those talking points generated by the CIA was a change from was referring to the facility that was attacked in Benghazi from “consulate” to “diplomatic post.”

We Only Made One Change to the Benghazi Talking Points Memo

See the video:LINK

Sooner or later, the lies will catch up ... .

jw

reply to post by jdub297


Carney has done more for the republicans today than anything the GOP could ever organize.



Someone oughta send the guy a gift basket or something!

reply to post by beezzer

Don't you wonder if the guy hasn't taken all the mirrors out of his house so he doesn't have to look into the eyes of a spineless megaphone every morning? Or if he even gets to sleep?

Regardless, I wonder how much this will boost Rice; she will not only spout puffery for her boss, she will embellish it just by being asked. Or did she throw in "the video" all by herself?

And, I don't know if you've noticed the repsonse by the MSM.
Here, let me quote some for you: ... .
And this: ... .



I did hear NPR on "All Things Considered" make a 10-second reference to "some minor changes" in "talking points." Then they sequed into the vastly more important issue of same-sex lovers and immigration as seen by the "gang of eight."

jw

well waddya know

In comments that went largely unnoticed, Missouri Congresswoman Ann Wagner (R) directly blamed President Obama for ordering the stand down which facilitated the assault on the US consulate in Benghazi

www.infowars.com...
video

The administration stepped in it again.Big time.How are they going to explain OR ignore this news.More"transparency"at work,right?

reply to post by Danbones


OK.
Obama refused aid to Americans under a seven-hour, murderous assault.
Obama's administration altered the CIA memo to hide references to terror attacks.
Those are only GOP attacks.

He got us "Affordable Care" and, his is "the most transparent adminstration ever" (that intimidates and prosecutes "Whistleblowers").

This is obviously Racist.

As things stand, the misdirection and redirection seems to be holding up fairly well.

No "legitimate" reporter has said anything about this, so it must be more Faux News.
Sharryl Attkisson can get another job (prefereably outside of Washington) as recognition for being in the vanguard of journalists who weren't cowed by White House bullying and employer pressure on Benghazi and F&F.

Does anyone see any real change coming of this; at least change for the better of America?

jw

Originally posted by TDawg61
The administration stepped in it again.Big time.How are they going to explain OR ignore this news.More"transparency"at work,right?

They don't have to. The MSM and NPR will do it for them.
Just look at the headlines and airtime devoted to misdirection, and dismissiveness.

Do you really think that the Congressional Black Caucus (or their constituents) gives a rat's ass about this?
They're screaming about the restriction of Food Stamps in casinos and bars, and the declining power of public unions to tell their employers how to run their governments into the ground.

Do you think the Hispanic Caucus (or their constituents) gives a damn? They're holding their collective breath over same-sex marriage rights for illegal immigrants, and the loss of immigrant jobs to Americans..

Do you think NOW (or its constituents) could care less? They're pulling out their hair over a woman's right to be butchered or hire the murderer of her choice for her late-term "fetal tissue."

You've clearly lost sight of the truly important issues in our culture.

jw

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by beezzer

 

Don't you wonder if the guy hasn't taken all the mirrors out of his house so he doesn't have to look into the eyes of a spineless megaphone every morning? Or if he even gets to sleep?

Regardless, I wonder how much this will boost Rice; she will not only spout puffery for her boss, she will embellish it just by being asked. Or did she throw in "the video" all by herself?

And, I don't know if you've noticed the repsonse by the MSM.
Here, let me quote some for you: ... .
And this: ... .

I did hear NPR on "All Things Considered" make a 10-second reference to "some minor changes" in "talking points." Then they sequed into the vastly more important issue of same-sex lovers and immigration as seen by the "gang of eight."
jw

For you, Dan, Beez and Dawg, I didn't know a mature vampire could show up in a mirror.
Seemed like a waste of wall space where another Neimann of him could go.

Just for that erudite fuzzy guy with the Henry; the laws of physics are going to get stretched
beyond the comprehension of a French fried anchovie before this is half over--- Goebbels'
bony jaw should have dropped when the one relevant gaffe of the video got thrown under
the not-a-motive locomotive, as nobody was about to beg the obvious 'inflammatory video'
issue ... question ... ,insert event horizon here ... Beuhler? What exactly was ONE viable
reason for half the skels in Benghazi to show up and do this then?

But again there might be fifteen people on the planet right now who know why the lateral
didn't get tossed and Ambassador Stevens and the others were killed-- I'm not one of them.
All I DO know is there's a lot of rescripting going on that's ended up, so far for talking points,
in a 180 from the original version of the Shop intel; and it's heading east fast, not south.
If what I heard from elsewhere is anything solid, this whole deal is hotter than Oppenheimer's
eyebrows... and I feel a little naked for the first time without a spare bedroom 600m under.

reply to post by 727Sky

Originally posted by 727Sky
If damage control does not start to do a better job there goes Hilary's bid for being the first female president.....

And that is exactly the purpose of this whole story. To prevent the Dems (specifically Hillary) from winning in 2016.

I think people are being PLAYED by the same people who worked SO hard to prevent Obama's second election. They failed and they're starting now by making this a MUCH bigger deal than it actually is. That's my theory as of this time.

I can't make a judgment about the story. I know Carney either lied or was misinformed. Could be either. Has he made a statement?

I know the talking points were changed. I can understand this happening with ANY "incident" that occurs before it's reported to the press. I totally understand not wanting to prejudice the media, especially since the reason and cause of the attack was not really known. I understand editing talking points for many reasons. They didn't really know if an Al Qaeda group was involved or not. Why NOT remove that suggestion?

Removing the reference to the warnings? Yes, a little dishonest, PERHAPS. But without knowing WHO attacked and WHY, were the previous warnings relevant? Those previous attackers were unidentified. If we don't know the previous attackers, how would we know if it was related to this attack? Could they be related? Sure. But is it responsible to make that suggestion to the media? No.

Should there be an investigation? Yes. Let's find out what happened, learn from it and move on. But I don't see anything (yet) that would even suggest that this administration did anything illegal.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

You're exactly the material CNN/MSNBC is lookinf for. tou should forward this with your resume'.

Should there be an investigation? Yes. Let's find out what happened, learn from it and move on. But I don't see anything (yet) that would even suggest that this administration did anything illegal.

OK. So when "whistleblowers" say they've been threatened or prevented from testifying, how does this help "find out what happened?" Regardless of what "I see," who should anser for the State Dept., since you regard Clinton as immaculate and inviolate? What about her "boss?"

jw

reply to post by jdub297

Originally posted by jdub297
You're exactly the material CNN/MSNBC is lookinf for. tou should forward this with your resume'.

And why should I try to have an adult discussion with you? I'm done with this immature, ad Hominem BS that passes for discussion and debate on ATS today. You go after ME instead of addressing the points I made.

Just for your information, I didn't get my opinion from TV news.

OK. So when "whistleblowers" say they've been threatened or prevented from testifying, how does this help "find out what happened?"

I haven't seen where any whistleblowers have actually been threatened or prevented from testifying. I've seen insinuation by "unnamed sources" who may or may not have even been on the ground that night. I've seen "suggestions" that "alleged" threats "may have happened"... but not to whom. That's why I support an investigation.

... since you regard Clinton as immaculate and inviolate?

Another juvenile charge that doesn't deserve a response. I thought maybe I had stumbled upon a thread worth joining, but if the OP can't even keep it on topic and civil, I don't belong here. If you want to educate people and change their minds, I suggest you drop the adolescent and smart-aleck responses that tend to turn intelligent discussion into worthless, partisan bickering. I SAID I haven't made a judgment about the story yet. And it looks like this thread isn't going to help me out. I guess I'll just go watch some MSNBC and let them tell me what to think.

Have a nice day.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


I agree with you 100%.



You never see the real people behind the screen but you can always tell the narrative they are trying to get you to trust.

Is Clinton and Obama to blame?... I don't think the blame falls squarely on their shoulders but they are part of the leadership group that needed to appreciate this country was in strife and we needed better protection for our people. Is all this rambling BS from FOX News and the Murdoch media justified?.. hell no. Mistakes were made and changes need to be implemented but this story is being way over blown for purely political reasons.

The CIA front 'republicans' need to win the next election. If nothing else significant happens then this will be the main narrative of that election. If something does happen, then this will vanish from the news quicker than you can say 'Billoriellyisthemoderndaygoebbels'

No one cares about the lives of the people lost, not one little bit. The only thing the people care about is that the more unnamed sources you throw at the public, the more likely they are to lost sight of the truth.