It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
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.
edit on 5/13/2013 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by ratcals
Well it would seem we can put this to rest.
"There's no there there."
The annointed one has spoken. So move along.edit on 13-5-2013 by ratcals because: Spelling mistake. I hate spelling mistakes.
The White House on Wednesday released 94 pages of emails between top administration and intelligence officials who helped shape the talking points about the attacks in Benghazi, Libya, that the CIA would provide to policymakers in both the legislative and executive branches.
The documents, first reported by THE WEEKLY STANDARD in articles here and here, directly contradict claims by White House press secretary Jay Carney and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that the revisions of those talking points were driven by the intelligence community and show heavy input from top Obama administration officials, particularly those at the State Department.
CIA officials also added bullet points about the possible participation of Ansar al Sharia, an al Qaeda-linked jihadist group, and previous warnings about the deteriorating security situation in Benghazi. Those additions came out after the talking points were sent to “the interagency,” where the CIA’s final draft was further stripped down to little more than boilerplate. The half dozen references to terrorists – both in Benghazi and more generally – all but disappeared. Gone were references to al Qaeda, Ansar al Sharia, jihadists, Islamic extremists, etc. The only remaining mention was a note that “extremists” had participated in the attack.
As striking as what appears in the email traffic is what does not. There is no mention of the YouTube video that would become a central part of the administration’s explanation of the attacks to the American people until a brief mention in the subject line of emails coming out of an important meeting where further revisions were made.