Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Should the CIA have been better at putting out their initial talking points? Yes. That was determined in the first investigation. As well as in the eight that followed.
So, how many times does it have to be said before you will be satisfied?
I answered your question. Am I okay with the fact that the CIA did a lousy job of putting out their talking points? Maybe they could have done a better job.
Now how about you answer mine? Does that warrant nine investigations? How many times does it have to be said before you will be satisfied?
so, the CIA is the responsible party with respect to a Sec. of State's presentation of events?
It seems to me that State had many revisions to the CIA narrative, from my understanding
Update, May 16, 2013: The talking points given to Rice were extensively revised, largely at the request of the State Department. The original CIA talking points said, “We do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.” And they said that “nitial press reporting linked the attack to Ansar al-Sharia.” References to al-Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia were removed. However, all of the drafts say the attack began “spontaneously” in response to the Cairo protest. Read our article “Benghazi Attack, Revisited” for more information on what changes were made to the talking points.
Update, May 2, 2014: Two days before Rice’s appearance on the Sunday talk show circuit, Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes sent an email to other administration officials, including White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, with the subject line “PREP CALL with Susan: Saturday at 4:00 pm ET.” Rhodes’ email outlined four “goals” for Rice’s TV appearances. One of the goals: “To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.” The email contained a mock Q&A session, and the third question asked whether the Benghazi attack was “an intelligence failure.” The answer in the email parroted — nearly word for word — Rice’s talking points when it said: “The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US Consulate and subsequently its annex.” The Rhodes email was released April 29 by Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group that obtained 41 State Department documents under the Freedom of Information Act.
Obama said Republicans acted “as if there’s something new to the story” about the talking points used by an administration official to discuss Benghazi on the Sept. 16, 2012, Sunday talk shows. But this much is new: We learned that White House Press Secretary Jay Carney falsely claimed the White House and State Department made no substantive changes to the talking points. Extensive revisions were made after State raised objections and after a White House meeting.
Carney may be technically correct to say the CIA was the entity that “drafted” and “redrafted” the talking points — a House GOP report on the matter said, “The actual edits were made by a current high-ranking CIA official.” But the Weekly Standard and ABC News reports describe how changes were made after the State Department objected. To say that the State Department made a “single adjustment” to the wording, as Carney claimed, is misleading at best. It glosses over the State Department’s extensive involvement in the editing process.
[i]ABC News published 12 drafts of the talking points. All of the drafts say the attack began “spontaneously” in response to a violent protest in Cairo (which was sparked by the anti-Muslim video). But the original CIA talking points said, “We do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.” And they said that “[i]nitial press reporting linked the attack to Ansar al-Sharia.”
to me, it is not the attack under HRC's watch that bothers me - it is the cover up attempted afterwards
sometimes it takes many interrogations, covering the same material, to uncover a cover up --
it seems to me, that much information has come to light in these investigations.
I'm OK with continued hearings until the stories presented come to a reasonable portrayal of the situation that occured,
substantiated by the official and unofficial records.
The dog and pony show we were subjected to was not a reasonable portrayal, IMHO
so, the CIA is the responsible party with respect to a Sec. of State's presentation of events?
It seems to me that State had many revisions to the CIA narrative, from my understanding
Update, May 16, 2013: The talking points given to Rice were extensively revised, largely at the request of the State Department. The original CIA talking points said, “We do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.” And they said that “nitial press reporting linked the attack to Ansar al-Sharia.” References to al-Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia were removed. However, all of the drafts say the attack began “spontaneously” in response to the Cairo protest. Read our article “Benghazi Attack, Revisited” for more information on what changes were made to the talking points.
Update, May 2, 2014: Two days before Rice’s appearance on the Sunday talk show circuit, Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes sent an email to other administration officials, including White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, with the subject line “PREP CALL with Susan: Saturday at 4:00 pm ET.” Rhodes’ email outlined four “goals” for Rice’s TV appearances. One of the goals: “To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.” The email contained a mock Q&A session, and the third question asked whether the Benghazi attack was “an intelligence failure.” The answer in the email parroted — nearly word for word — Rice’s talking points when it said: “The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US Consulate and subsequently its annex.” The Rhodes email was released April 29 by Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group that obtained 41 State Department documents under the Freedom of Information Act.
Obama said Republicans acted “as if there’s something new to the story” about the talking points used by an administration official to discuss Benghazi on the Sept. 16, 2012, Sunday talk shows. But this much is new: We learned that White House Press Secretary Jay Carney falsely claimed the White House and State Department made no substantive changes to the talking points. Extensive revisions were made after State raised objections and after a White House meeting.
Carney may be technically correct to say the CIA was the entity that “drafted” and “redrafted” the talking points — a House GOP report on the matter said, “The actual edits were made by a current high-ranking CIA official.” But the Weekly Standard and ABC News reports describe how changes were made after the State Department objected. To say that the State Department made a “single adjustment” to the wording, as Carney claimed, is misleading at best. It glosses over the State Department’s extensive involvement in the editing process.
[i]ABC News published 12 drafts of the talking points. All of the drafts say the attack began “spontaneously” in response to a violent protest in Cairo (which was sparked by the anti-Muslim video). But the original CIA talking points said, “We do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.” And they said that “[i]nitial press reporting linked the attack to Ansar al-Sharia.”
to me, it is not the attack under HRC's watch that bothers me - it is the cover up attempted afterwards
sometimes it takes many interrogations, covering the same material, to uncover a cover up --
it seems to me, that much information has come to light in these investigations.
I'm OK with continued hearings until the stories presented come to a reasonable portrayal of the situation that occured....
Here we go again. "It's not the attack; it's the cover-up". "It's not the four dead Americans; it's the video we care about.
What a load of crap and the american people see it.
They are busy throwing shyte on the wall to see what sticks. An, old, familiar ploy.
Here we go again. "It's not the attack; it's the cover-up". "It's not the four dead Americans; it's the video we care about.
What a load of crap and the american people see it.
They are busy throwing shyte on the wall to see what sticks. An, old, familiar ploy.
do you not believe that public officials should be as honest as possible to their constitutients?
or at least not trying to obfuscate the facts of a situation - especially if the situation involves the death of several public servants?
How many hearings did we have on 9-11; or on the Iraq War?
Less than we've had on Benghazi.
End of story.
This has already exceeded the Watergate Hearings, the Warren Commission and 9-11. I think the Watergate hearings were a pretty big deal compared to this but here we are years later.
By the way the North Africa Embassy bombings, the Air Force Barracks, Marines in Lebanon all much more significant and yet we moved on, yet Benghazi goes on for years and is obviously politically motivated.
I look forward to the release of the interviews which have already been leaked in June by the GOP members (the parts they liked) and can't wait for Clintons testimony at the hearings. I fully expect the GOP members to once again make complete fools of themselves.
I give McCarthy credit for stating the obvious, there is hope for the GOP.
U.S. Embassy and Consulate attacks under George W. Bush
January 22, 2002: US Consulate at Kolkata, 5 killed.
June 14, 2002: US Consulate at Karachi, 12 killed.
February 28, 2003: US Embassy at Islamabad, 2 killed.
June 30, 2004: US Embassy at Tashkent, 2 killed.
December 6. 2004: US Compound at Saudi Arabia, 9 killed.
March 2, 2006: US Consulate in Karachi, 2 killed.
September 12, 2006: US Embassy at Syria, 4 killed.
March 18, 2008: US Embassy at Yemen, 2 killed.
July 9, 2008: US Consulate at Istanbul, 6 killed.
September 17, 2008: US Embassy at Yemen, 16 killed.
How is it a smear campaign when the white house an Hillary constantly lied about the reason Americans were killed?
It was a video - LIE
We don't know of any gun running - LIE
We knew of gun running but it wasn't us - LIE
The State and Treasury departments hired Marc Turi to run guns. THAT is the reason Americans were killed.
Yes, they lied.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JAMS14
The Bush White House consistently lied about the reason more than 4,000 Americans were sent to die in Iraq.
You failed to address his points.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JAMS14
They have been asked and answered in eight previous investigations.
Okay, why was the meeting with the Turkish Delegation held at Benghazi instead of the safety of the embassy mission at Tripoli?
We'll wait while you search in vain for the answer.
Last edited by Mircea; 10-06-2015 at 08:34 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
