Benghazi Talking Points Underwent 12 Revisions, Scrubbed of Terror Reference

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
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.

Of course, that is the most important part of the story of an American consulate being sacrificed, including the lives of an Ambassador and others, that you and other progreesives are willing to see. Pathetic.

Forget the larger picture of our half-assed suppport of a mission in a country whose "liberation" the administration is so eager to take credit for, "leading from behind." forget the State Dept.'s complete refusla to acknowledge the precarious environment despite warnings and prior attacks on others of the diplomatic corps.

No. Your focus must remain upon the sanctity of the 2016 campaign, and to ascribe ANY negatives against your favored choice to "partisan politics." How pathetic.

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.

No, you don't; and no, it isn't. You've looked around to the left or right for any sign of partisanship to cast a wider net of suspicion than legitimate inquiry deserves. How "MUCH bigger" does an issue of competence and strategic failure have to become than to consume the lives of innocent public servants? They're nothing more than your fodder for pusillanimous excuse-making for the candidates/parties to whom you are unadmittedly beholden.

I can't make a judgment about the story.

That's a good little servant If you can't say something nice, don't saty anything, depsite the truth and facts. "Just following orders," no?

I know Carney either lied or was misinformed. Could be either. Has he made a statement?

Oh my! How observant; how judgmental! "Has he made a statement?" Anyone with hal a brain knows exactly the contortions Carney and the White House have twisted themselves into over this. "Video, what video?" "Did we say that?" More of the good soldier. You've got a great career to look forward to after 2056. (Yes, 2056;
cause 2016 is slipping away as you try to clean up the mess.)

I know the talking points were changed.

Jeez, you could be an "All Things Considered" copywriter. "Changed?"
How about "replaced," or "completely re-written," or maybe "sanitized?"
Any of those wpould be more accurate than "changed."
Did you se the comparison? You cal that a "change?" You wil go far, I'm certain, in "progressive" reportage.

I can understand this happening with ANY "incident" that occurs before it's reported to the press.

OK. So the murder and abandonment to butchers of 4 Americans, including an Ambassador, is now an "incident." That's about the same as a "progressive" parent referring to her children as "fetal tissue."

I totally understand not wanting to prejudice the media

Oh, no. Let's not "prejudice" or disabuse Chris Matthews of the thrills running up his leg as our citizens are beaten and murdered on American soil by a nurderous band of terrorists.

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?

Even the WaPo and NYT acknowledge that this was a security and diplomatic failure of leadership at the highest levels. Better late than never, no?

After his Libyan intervention, President Obama knew he was sending diplomats and their protectors into a country that was no longer a country, a land rife with fighters affiliated with Al Qaeda.

Yet in this hottest of hot spots, the State Department’s minimum security requirements were not met, requests for more security were rejected, and contingency plans were not drawn up, despite the portentous date of 9/11 and cascading warnings from the C.I.A., which had more personnel in Benghazi than State did and vetted the feckless Libyan Praetorian Guard. When the Pentagon called an elite Special Forces team three hours into the attack, it was training in Croatia — decidedly not a hot spot.

www.nytimes.com...

What pathetic, self-serving drivel.

jw

reply to post by Agit8dChop

Is all this rambling BS from FOX News and the Murdoch media justified?.. hell no.

Oh, no. Forget that these are the very organizations that told the story while you held your fingers in your ears, refusing to listen.

So, what does it do to your myth pf persecution to see WaPo, HuuPo and the NYT joining in the clamor, now that the lies are undeniable"

How do you de-limit and encircle the criticism of the progressives media, now that admistration's fecklessness has been exposed?

The administration’s behavior before and during the attack in Benghazi, in which four Americans died, was unworthy of the greatest power on earth.

After his Libyan intervention, President Obama knew he was sending diplomats and their protectors into a country that was no longer a country, a land rife with fighters affiliated with Al Qaeda.

www.nytimes.com...

Never you mind a pissant thread on ATS; how do you counter the genteel effrontery of the New Yorker when even they have to acknowledge that they were mislead?

For a long time, it seemed like the idea of a coverup was just a Republican obsession. But now there is something to it.

... ABC News’s Jonathan Karl revealed the details of the editing process for the C.I.A.’s talking points about the attack, including the edits themselves and some of the reasons a State Department spokeswoman gave for requesting those edits. It’s striking to see the twelve different iterations that the talking points went through before they were released to Congress and to United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice.. . Over the course of about twenty-four hours, the remarks evolved from something specific and fairly detailed into a bland, vague mush.

www.newyorker.com...

Of couse, you and you friends only see "minor changes," a la NPR.

... the mere existence of the edits—whatever the motivation for them—seriously undermines the White House’s credibility on this issue.

Too late!

Remarkably, Carney is sticking with that line even now.
...
This is an incredible thing for Carney to be saying. He’s playing semantic games, telling a roomful of journalists that the definition of editing we’ve all been using is wrong, that the only thing that matters is who’s actually working the keyboard. It’s not quite re-defining the word “is,” or the phrase “sexual relations,” but it’s not all that far off, either.

Spinning Benghazi
The time for your feigned indifference and indignation has long since passed when even the bastions of liberal thought have to admit failure at keeping this mess swept under the rug.

jw

Originally posted by jdub297
Of course, that is the most important part of the story of an American consulate being sacrificed, including the lives of an Ambassador and others, that you and other progreesives are willing to see. Pathetic.

Interestingly, you didn't mention the "sacrifice" or the lives of "innocent public servants" in ANY of your posts in this thread. If I'm guilty of ignoring that aspect, then you are doubly so, since you have TOTALLY ignored them in this thread of yours.

"partisan politics." How pathetic.

Again, Look in the mirror. Your entire focus in this thread has been partisan politics (and insults of those who disagree with you). Your hatred of the left has been the focus of your posts here. You have NO ROOM to accuse me of partisan politics.

OK. So the murder and abandonment to butchers of 4 Americans, including an Ambassador, is now an "incident."

Yes, it's an incident. Look it up.

What pathetic, self-serving drivel.

I could certainly say the same for your participation in this thread.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Seems the GOP is pulling back in their attacks on Hillary. They're realizing that making her a target is only creating sympathy from the voting public and will ruin their plans to demonize her.

A top GOP critic pushed back Sunday on charges that Republican efforts to investigate last year's Benghazi attack are designed to inflict political damage on former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

"Hillary Clinton's not a target," said House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa on NBC's Meet the Press. "President Obama is not a target."

HA! Just the opposite is clearly true. Do they think the voting public are idiots? Yes, they clearly do.

"My concern is when Hillary Clinton's name is mentioned 32 times in a hearing, then the point of the hearing is to discredit the Secretary of State, who has very high popularity and may well be a candidate for president," Feinstein said.

Likely 2016 Republican candidate Sen. Rand Paul excoriated Clinton in a speech Friday in key campaign state Iowa, saying her role in the Benghazi episode "should preclude her from holding higher office."

(Nice hint, Rand! Real subtle!)

Source

Yeah... Hillary's not a target.

The Right Mauls Hillary over Benghazi

In a temporary office beside a shopping mall in northern Virginia, half a dozen young Republican operatives were hunched over their computers as the House oversight committee questioned witnesses about last September’s deadly attack on the US consulate in Benghazi.

Their focus was on one person: Hillary Clinton.
...
Their top target right now is Clinton, the overwhelming favourite to secure the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination. “We want to fill the void on the right between now and when she has a political operation up and running,” said Miller.

reply to post by jdub297


Hi,

Sorry if im wasting ur time but i honestyl dont know where else to look.... I dont know anything, i mean nothing about this whole Benghazi thing but when i google it there is only deep complex articles on the whole affair.... im just looking for a simple abc of what the hell this whole thing is about and what went down....

Imagine someone who never heard of 9/11....well i have never heard of bengazhi, but i hear its big so can u please maybe gimme a link to an simplified explanation of this whole scandal from start to now????

Thanks

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


These are not, and should not be partisan issues for debate... It's too important for that.

What ever happened to just examining and investigating the ethical, moral, right and wrong?

What happened here should not get lost in the debate, or used for political objectives, nor would it be wise to adopt a position of blindly defending the indefensible...

reply to post by jdub297


What would you have me do?
Bow down and kiss the feet of every man who wants to spit in Obamas face?
Were you this riled up at Bush's very blatant blacking out of the 911 report into Saudi? or is this just a Obama fixation?

Do you believe that the Benghazi incident is solely Obama's fault? Should we hang him for it?
your foaming at the mouth over this its painful reading about it because its just endless biased drivel. No matter if anyone presents a reasonable side to their argument you just attack attack attack without sitting down and thinking this isnt a ground breaking, word defining situation as your making it out to be.

You do realise too that Murdoch Media applies to much more than Fox News right?

4 Americans died.. big friggen deal.. Americans kill 10x that on a daily level and it doesn't make the news.. yet you accuse me of indifference?

Obama, the democrats, the Republicans.. there politicans, they lie. In the scheme of things, this Benghazi thing is bloody minor. you seem passionate and you seem to have your head in the right place, stop wasting your time on this issue and focus on something that has a little more substance.

I honestly cant be assed spending any more time debating this topic. Sh1t happens, its over with. no matter how many unamed sources FOX NEWS presents, its not going to change a damn thing.

get over it.

reply to post by Agit8dChop


Those Americans died needlessly, there could have been a different outcome. There was a cover up after the fact, getting over it as you order, requires that we just dismiss the wrongdoings here and move on.

We do that, and we will deserve whatever comes next.

Hell why question anything? Let's all forget about the powers involved and their obligations... Let them do as they wish and tell us anything and we will always believe it.

reply to post by ausername

Originally posted by ausername
These are not, and should not be partisan issues for debate... It's too important for that.

Tell that to the thread starter and the GOP, not me.

What happened here should not get lost in the debate, or used for political objectives, nor would it be wise to adopt a position of blindly defending the indefensible...

Tell me... Why is it that the 11 deadly embassy attacks under Bush weren't investigated in the public square? Why were the Republicans not outraged and demanding details of every operation and decision?

During the eight years in which George W Bush was President, U.S. foreign embassies and consulates were attacked eleven different times, resulting in fifty-two deaths of American citizens.

If you're going to accuse someone of using this incident as a political ploy, you had better ask yourself that very hard question. The right is using this for politics and many people are being strung along...

Democrats in congress never launched investigations or held hearing on any of the eleven deadly attacks during the Bush era, because while fatal and tragic, they were understood to merely be tragedies.

The Benghazi attack just happened to transpire during a presidential election, which Mitt Romney immediately and inaccurately attempted to politicize in a manner which backfired on him and helped cost him the election. Even as Romney paid the political price for trying to manufacture a tragedy into a scandal, his fellow republicans in congress have nonetheless pressed on with the issue as if there were something new to find or some way to turn it into something other than what it was.

Embassy Attacks - Obama: 2, Bush: 11

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

I dunno ..... A lot of Democrats can see that the Obama administration, and Hillary in particular, have been caught with their pants down on this.

I think the 'purpose' of the Benghazi story is to get to the truth.

SOMEONE gave the 'stand down' order.
SOMEONE left our people in the field to die.
We need to know who did that and why .. so it won't happen again.

As to the Hillary thing. I have said many times that I think she is more than qualified to be POTUS and that she could do a good job. MUCH better than Obama. I think the dems should have given us a HIllary/Richardson ticket back in 2008 and the country would be better off now than with Obama.

That being said, I do think this could damage Hillary for 2016. Not because it's some kind of plot to bring her down by the Republicans. But because she is ultimately responsible for security in Benghazi AND because she said 'what difference does it make now' in the hearings which makes it look like she's covering up some shenanigans (which could be the case).

(I can't believe she said that. I attribute that to her concussion that she was recovering from at the time. She's too smart and too polished to say something that IGNORANT otherwise ... IMHO).

Side note ... Carney is doing cartwheels with this .. he looks like a rodeo clown ...

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Tell me... Why is it that the 11 deadly embassy attacks under Bush weren't investigated in the public square? Why were the Republicans not outraged and demanding details of every operation and decision?

That's straight from the MSNBC talking points.
So here is the talking points response from the other side -
- No one in the Bush or Clinton administrations tried to cover up the attacks and call them anything other than terrorist attacks and no one tried to cover up extremely poor responses by the administration.

Blog that talks about this tactic

There is an argument I am seeing show up pretty regularly on Twitter. Someone tweets a link to a news story asking valid questions about Benghazi, or suggesting that there has been a cover-up (and history shows that fallout from coverups are always worse than the incidents that preceded them, but politicians never learn) someone intent on protecting the administration or Hillary Clinton tweets the equivalent of a sneer: “oh yeah? Well there were this many attacks on US Embassies while Bush was president, where were you then, huh? Why wasn’t anyone demanding investigations, then, huh?”

Okay, well, I was wrong in calling that an argument; it’s really just your basic distraction tactic, meant to obfuscate and confuse, as we see Jon Stewart try to do, here. Must not discuss Obama and Benghazi and today. Let’s keep repeating the talking points from ten years ago.

But the answer is actually pretty simple: yeah, there were x-number of embassy attacks under Bush and they did not require investigations. For that matter there were all of these attacks on embassies and American interests under President Clinton, and they didn’t require investigations, either.

Why not? Well, because under Bush the embassy attacks were taking place mostly in Iraq, and during a time of acknowledged war — right in the thick of it, in fact — and no one tried to argue that they were anything but planned and executed attacks.

reply to post by FlyersFan

Originally posted by FlyersFan
- No one in the Bush or Clinton administrations tried to cover up the attacks and call them anything other than terrorist attacks and no one tried to cover up extremely poor responses by the administration.

How do you know? How WOULD we know? We barely heard about it on the news at all.

And the ONLY reason I bring it up now, is because I am being accused of politicizing this event, when clearly, it was being politicized (by the right) way before I had even heard about it.

Well it would seem we can put this to rest.

"There's no there there."

The annointed one has spoken. So move along.

reply to post by ratcals


He is most likely correct, there is no there there because it has been edited out, covered up and maybe with enough intimidation and threats the wistleblowers can be silenced for good.

Sure, there is no there there, but was there a there there?

Originally posted by FlyersFan


Side note ... Carney is doing cartwheels with this .. he looks like a rodeo clown ...

I was thinking more of a "Bagdad Bob" kinda week for ole' Jay...

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
How do you know? How WOULD we know? We barely heard about it on the news at all.

Good question. My only possible answer ... the vast left wing media couldn't dig up anything wrong with the response to the attacks that happened during the Bush43 and Clinton years. Otherwise, we never would have heard the end of it (and rightfully so).

I am being accused of politicizing this event, when clearly, it was being politicized (by the right) way before I had even heard about it.

I can't speak to you being accused of politicizing ... I don't know about that.

As for the right politicizing ....
- It was pretty obvious from the first day that the story the Obama administration was trying to push was absurd. So for the right to keep discussing it and not letting the Obama administration bamboozle people .. I don't call that politicizing .. I call it 'stating the obvious'.

- However, If you are correct and the right was politicizing ... and I don't know if they were ... they got lucky because they tried to politicize something that didn't need politicizing. (can you follow that? Did I say it right?) What the Obama administration (or Hillary, which ever you want to pick) did was wrong from the beginning.

Kind of like what happened with the OJ trial. Someone (I can't remember who) said that someone was trying to set OJ up to look guilty ... they were trying to set up a guilty man to look guilty. So maybe you see some republicans trying to politicize something that they don't need to politicize because it was obvious from the start that a coverup of incompetence was going on???? Maybe.

Originally posted by ausername
reply to post by Agit8dChop

 

Those Americans died needlessly, there could have been a different outcome. There was a cover up after the fact, getting over it as you order, requires that we just dismiss the wrongdoings here and move on.

We do that, and we will deserve whatever comes next.

Hell why question anything? Let's all forget about the powers involved and their obligations... Let them do as they wish and tell us anything and we will always believe it.

Your right,well said.
And your right,why question anything?
In reality,it may make an idividual feel better knowing "the truth".
But the majority dont really wanna be bothered.

And I like this
"Those Americans died needlessly, there could have been a different outcome"

As do most PEOPLE throughout the world.
The people who have agendas will always use people as they see fit.
And its not just in America.

This board,and others like it,are a way to share ideas with people who have already bought into the idea of conspiracies.
And like all other boards,theres never a solution to the problems.
And as much as we may think were sheding light on a subject,were not really,more like preaching to the choir.

I mean no dis-respect in my opinion.
Just being a realist.
And I,like alot of people,continue to TRY and make the smallest change or difference.

Benghazi,was minor,the lives lost werent,but the event.
Worse has happened in history.
And in the end,nobody is gonna go to jail or lose their job over it.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Interestingly, you didn't mention the "sacrifice" or the lives of "innocent public servants" in ANY of your posts in this thread. If I'm guilty of ignoring that aspect, then you are doubly so, since you have TOTALLY ignored them in this thread of yours.

How odd that you missed my very first post after the initial "set-up" of the thread within the ATS constraints:

State Department and Obama White House failures to defend and protect the consulate in the face of prior threats and attacks?

"partisan politics." How pathetic.

Again, Look in the mirror. Your entire focus in this thread has been partisan politics (and insults of those who disagree with you). Your hatred of the left has been the focus of your posts here. You have NO ROOM to accuse me of partisan politics.

What a sad indictment of the "progressive" spin; as in shooting the messenger.

Let's see, the Secretary of State is democrat/progressive. The spokeswoman chosen to lie to the world is democrat/progressive. The press secretary standing guard on the false story is democrat/progressive. the head of the executive department is democrat/progressive. And I'M making this partisan? Keep circling the wagons, Carville.

OK. So the murder and abandonment to butchers of 4 Americans, including an Ambassador, is now an "incident."

Yes, it's an incident. Look it up.

Tell that to the victims' families. You can't bear the truth, can you?

Yeah... Hillary's not a target.

She desrves to be as much of a "target" as her staff were in Benghazi!

Their focus was on one person: Hillary Clinton.

So, whatever happened to "the buck stops here?" If it rolls directly back to the incompetent potus or sosotus, then you would happily just look away.

Originally posted by combatmaster
reply to post by jdub297

 

Hi,

Sorry if im wasting ur time but i honestyl dont know where else to look.... I dont know anything, i mean nothing about this whole Benghazi thing but when i google it there is only deep complex articles on the whole affair.... im just looking for a simple abc of what the hell this whole thing is about and what went down....

Imagine someone who never heard of 9/11....well i have never heard of bengazhi, but i hear its big so can u please maybe gimme a link to an simplified explanation of this whole scandal from start to now????

Thanks

On September 11, 2012, American political outpost in Benghazi, Libya came under armed .attack. Prior ro this, therte had been attacks upon diplomats in the area, and the outpost had made several requests for additional armed security.

At the time of the attack, Libya was providing security theough foreign contractors that consisted of other Libyans "armed" with sticks and handcuffs. On the night in question, Libya provided no armed securty.

A group of people bergan an attack with guns and grenades on the ooutpost after dark. The Americans i the complex, incluing an Ambassador, called repeatedly to Washington and to others in the area for assistance and support. Nonw was given.

4 Americans, including the Ambassador, were killed during the 7-hour attack. The attack was monitored by airborne drones from start to finish. Several other A,ericans were eventually evacuated from the complex to the embassy in Tripoli.

The following weekend, the US ambassador to the UN appeared on several TV news show to annoubce that the attack was the result of a YouTube video that had been published several months earlier. Swc. of State Hillary Clinton met the deceaseds' coffins with a vow to pouniush the vidoe's author. Barack Obama appeared at the UN to denounce videos.

Rumors began to spread that the incident was a coordinated attack by al Q'aidi-related terorists.

If you didn't already know this, you jave no buinsess in this forum or on this thread.
My guess is you are a troll.

reply to post by FlyersFan

SOMEONE gave the 'stand down' order.
SOMEONE left our people in the field to die.
We need to know who did that and why .. so it won't happen again.

As to the Hillary thing. I have said many times that I think she is more than qualified to be POTUS and that she could do a good job. MUCH better than Obama. I think the dems should have given us a HIllary/Richardson ticket back in 2008 and the country would be better off now than with Obama.

You forgot that someone clearly re-wrote the CIA memo to delete all reference to teror.

In 2006 I predicted that a Hillary/Obama ticket would be un-beatable and woiuld provide a relatively inexperienced senator the opportunity to extend democrat leadership from 2008 through 2024 and beyond. Dems jumped-the-gun, and this disaster is part of what they got for their fecklessness and impatience.

Now, dems are back to cleaning up the mess and trying toi resurrect/sanitizr the best candidate they had in 2008. I hope it's too little too late.

Of course, dems blame the GOP and conservatives for their own lack of strategic vision and social pandering. They dug this hole for themselves and refuse to accept the fialure of their short-sighted "vision" thing.

reply to post by jdub297


Wow,

Thanks for the summary. That was simple enough and i understand now thanks to you all the talking and conflict points. Thanks Bro.

I have a few more obvious questions but i will research them myself as i sense you are a little aggressive due to other members intimidation methods (hence calling me a troll). But i assure u that i am NOT a troll, im just a curious unknowledgeable person.