« | »

Hillary Was Behind The Talking Points Revisions

From ABC News:

Exclusive: Benghazi Talking Points Underwent 12 Revisions, Scrubbed of Terror Reference

By Jonathan Karl | May 10, 2013

When it became clear last fall that the CIA’s now discredited [sic!] Benghazi talking points were flawed [sic!], 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 Congress and to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice before she appeared on five talk shows the Sunday after that attack.

This is an important point to remember. The talking points were not only used to lie to the American people, they were also used to lie to Congress.

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.”

Wow. Mr. Karl is calling Jay Carney and thereby Barack Obama — a liar.

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.

As we have previously noted, Stephan Hayes has amply demonstrated that the CIA altered the talking points at the insistence of the State Department spokes flack Victoria Nuland and other top Obama administration officials, including Ben Rhodes, who is the brother of the President of CBS News.

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 …”

So no one was concerned about national security. They were only concerned that this information would be used to (rightly) criticize the State Department and Hillary Clinton.

The paragraph was entirely deleted.

What Hillary wants, Hillary gets.

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.

Once again, Nuland objected to naming the terrorist groups because “we don’t want to prejudice the investigation.”

Which is why they went on to claim that the attack was entirely due to a YouTube video.

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.

Again, meaning Hillary Clinton.

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.

Again, "State Department’s concerns." Not national security concerns.

As we have also previously noted, Ben Rhodes is a longtime Obama speechwriter, and a top advisor on foreign policy. Rhodes wrote Obama’s ‘Cairo speech.’ And he also pushed for the Arab Spring, as well as US aid for the Libyan rebels.

“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.”

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…

This is the way they used to handle such embarrassments in totalitarian regimes like Red China and the old Soviet Union. And, of course, Chicago.

This article was posted by Steve Gilbert on Friday, May 10th, 2013. Comments are currently closed.

2 Responses to “Hillary Was Behind The Talking Points Revisions”

  1. thetriguy

    Hillary lost to Obama because she didn’t have the guts to challenge him during the primary, She was afraid that if she did, she would be called a racist (which they ended up calling her and Bill anyway). She fell into the same trap this time by not sayng that Obama’s mid-east policy was a disaster and the cause of much unrest we have heard about and the gun smuggling we will hear about very soon. So, the smartest woman in the world has shot herself in the foot not once but twice and now does not have a leg to stand on. Casting Call: Wanted–one heir apparent to POTUS. Must know how to shooot straight.

    • Rusty Shackleford

      I disagree. Not that it makes me happy. Hitlery’s resume has been enhanced by this breach of responsibility. The blacks got their turn first to have the “first black president” and Hitlery will have to settle for sloppy seconds because, in the war on conservativism, black trumps female. Oh, if only they had a black female to run….say….Condoleeza Rice, who, by the way doesn’t always side with the conservative viewpoint and has, on occasion brought up racial views that makes people wonder what the hell she’s thinking.

      But Hitlery took second chair because of the national socialist hierarchy of victimhood. Blacks come first, then women, then Mexicans and then queers. Or something like that (It’s hard to keep up).

      Failures in politics by a national socialist are heralded as major victories. One has only to read the blogs about how “everybody is picking on poor Hill”. Ugh.

      Step back for a moment and examine what the outcome would have been if a republican president and/or SecState had resulted in the deaths of four Americans. In the first place, the mediots would be rolling out how the conservatives hate gays and “let him die because they feel that’s the right way to do things”. The screams of injustice would be heard all over the world. Even the muslims would come out of the woodwork and claim how our policies of tolerance didn’t seem to protect Stevens life.

      Yes, they are good at throwing rocks, all of them. But when it comes to actually face responsibility, they suck at is, as is well-known.

      But in this particular case, the media is covering for HItlery because “it’s her turn” in 2016 and “we must have a woman in the white house who will take care of all the victims in the world.” The very concept of their “thought-processes” makes me ill.

      Never ignore the ability of people to act stupidly in large numbers.


« Front Page | To Top
« | »