freeman2 wrote:Well I presented arguments and you provided an adjectival response--I''ll leave it others to judge

Who exactly has been held responsible for the failures of Benghazi?

rickyp wrote:fate

Who exactly has been held responsible for the failures of Benghazi?

Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), chairman of the House intelligence committee: “The Pickering Report appears to make clear what we already knew: that there was strategic warning from the intelligence community of a dangerous security environment in Benghazi and that our diplomats were failed by the bureaucracy at the State Department.”

Some cover up.

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 Congress and to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice before she appeared on five talk shows the Sunday after that attack.

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.”

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.

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 …”

The paragraph was entirely deleted.

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.”

CIA director David Petraeus was surprised when he read the freshly rewritten talking points an aide had emailed him in the early afternoon of Saturday, September 15. One day earlier, analysts with the CIA’s Office of Terrorism Analysis had drafted a set of unclassified talking points policymakers could use to discuss the attacks in Benghazi, Libya. But this new version​—​produced with input from senior Obama administration policymakers​—​was a shadow of the original.

The original CIA talking points had been blunt: The assault on U.S. facilities in Benghazi was a terrorist attack conducted by a large group of Islamic extremists, including some with ties to al Qaeda.

These were strong claims. The CIA usually qualifies its assessments, providing policymakers a sense of whether the conclusions of its analysis are offered with “high confidence,” “moderate confidence,” or “low confidence.” That first draft signaled confidence, even certainty: “We do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda participated in the attack.”

There was good reason for this conviction. Within 24 hours of the attack, the U.S. government had intercepted communications between two al Qaeda-linked terrorists discussing the attacks in Benghazi. One of the jihadists, a member of Ansar al Sharia, reported to the other that he had participated in the assault on the U.S. diplomatic post. Solid evidence. And there was more. Later that same day, the CIA station chief in Libya had sent a memo back to Washington, reporting that eyewitnesses to the attack said the participants were known jihadists, with ties to al Qaeda.

GMTom wrote:we KNOW the administration knew this was a terrorist attack, we KNOW this had nothing to do with the you tube video. We KNOW the you tube theory went on for two weeks.
So how can anyone continue to say Obama and the secretary of State did not intentionally mislead the public?

So how can anyone continue to say Obama and the secretary of State did not intentionally mislead the public

There have been many questions raised about the development of the administration’s talking points in the aftermath of the attack on Benghazi, Libya, that left four Americans dead, including the U.S. ambassador. There have been allegations that the administration deliberately covered up the fact that this was a terrorist attack. We have noted before, in our extensive timeline of Benghazi statements, how long it took the president to concede that point in the midst of his reelection campaign.
But with the release of 12 versions of the talking points Friday by ABC News, perhaps there is an alternative explanation: This basically was a bureaucratic knife fight, pitting the State Department against the CIA.
In other words, the final version of the talking points may have been so wan because officials simply deleted everything that upset the two sides. So they were left with nothing

rickyp wrote:tom

So how can anyone continue to say Obama and the secretary of State did not intentionally mislead the public

?

Because the evidence is pretty strong that they didn't. Excepting that the CIA didn't want a lot of information about released....

Mostly because Ben Ghazi wasn't much more than a CIA post. There were only 7state department employees in Ben Ghazi evacuated. It wasn't, as Fate claims above, an embassy... That was in Tripoli.

If I said embassy, I apologize. It was a consulate. In any event, it was more than a CIA outpost. The ambassador was not CIA.

There have been many questions raised about the development of the administration’s talking points in the aftermath of the attack on Benghazi, Libya, that left four Americans dead, including the U.S. ambassador. There have been allegations that the administration deliberately covered up the fact that this was a terrorist attack. We have noted before, in our extensive timeline of Benghazi statements, how long it took the president to concede that point in the midst of his reelection campaign.
But with the release of 12 versions of the talking points Friday by ABC News, perhaps there is an alternative explanation: This basically was a bureaucratic knife fight, pitting the State Department against the CIA.
In other words, the final version of the talking points may have been so wan because officials simply deleted everything that upset the two sides. So they were left with nothing

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac ... ml?hpid=z1

The only thing going on by Fox and Issa is a political exercise, pandering to the hard core... and for the Republicans an attempt to tarnish Hillary Clinton before the 2016 campaign.... Unfortunately for them, there isn't enough here to sustain anything.

As experience shows. the American public doesn't hang Presidents or Secretary of States for errors. Reagan was forgiven for the administrative lapses when 241 died in the attack on their barracks in Lebanon in 83. They even forgave him for the Iran contra affair... and they've forgiven Bill Clinton for his moral failings.

This will fade away when Fox finds another issue to focus their outrage machine upon...

LISA MYERS, NBC NEWS SENIOR INVESTIGATIVE CORRESPONDENT: First of all, in her Congressional testimony, which is her only sustained questioning on this subject -- in her Congressional testimony she basically tried to slam the door on any further questions by saying, remember the dramatic statement, 'what difference does it make?'

This reopens, I think, the questions. I don't think we know yet to what extent this does or might damage Hillary Clinton. I think the administration's biggest vulnerability here is -- first of all, how do you send diplomats into this dangerous area to facilities that do not even meet minimum security standards? How do you then reduce their level of security by taking away some of the military personnel that they had? And then, how do you, when you know these people are in trouble, not find someway to move heaven and earth to at least get help there. (Hardball, May 9, 2013)

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: This story isn't going to explode; this is a drip, drip, drip [story]. And what the drip, drip, drip is about is this: the administration tried to suppress the truth about what happened in Benghazi and did that consistent and deliberately while the president -- at the same time -- tried to say that his only objective was to collect the facts and to share them as they receive them with the American people. Every piece of evidence that we heard yesterday contradicted that.

Now, this is not a hanging offense, it is not a jailing offense; it's not a break-in, it's not a burglary. It is an administration trying to cover-up what was not a criminal act that could have been misjudgments, and there were. But there was a lot of human error. You can have some sympathy, they might have made the wrong judgment about a rescue, or not. You have to balance it left and right.

So it was not that great of a crime. But they decided, in the middle of an election, where the president had proclaimed 'al Qaeda was gone, we've conquered all of this. The War on Terror is over. I'm a big hero. Osama is slain. GM is alive and Osama is dead.' In the middle of a campaign where they're pushing this, they decided to maintain that line -- they would suppress the truth, they would demote a hero like [Gregory] Hicks. They would shout at him, they would threaten him, they would not allow him to meet with a Congressional delegation. All of these things, I think, are part of a cover-up.

Victoria Toensing, attorney for Benghazi whistleblower Gregory Hicks, says Hicks is a Democrat who voted for Hillary Clinton during the 2008 primaries, and President Obama twice for President. Toensing also said that NBC News "spiked" the story this week, prior to Hicks' dramatic testimony before Congress.

"CBS News President David Rhodes and ABC News President Ben Sherwood, both of them have siblings that not only work at the White House, that not only work for President Obama, but they work at the NSC on foreign policy issues directly related to Benghazi."

So stated political consultant and media commentator Richard Grenell on Saturday's Fox News Watch:

RICHARD GRENELL: I think the media's becoming the story, let's face it. CBS News President David Rhodes and ABC News President Ben Sherwood, both of them have siblings that not only work at the White House, that not only work for President Obama, but they work at the NSC on foreign policy issues directly related to Benghazi. Let's call a spade a spade.

Let's also show you why CNN did not go very far in covering these hearings because the CNN deputy bureau chief, Virginia Moseley, is married to Hillary Clinton’s deputy, Tom Nides. It is time for the media to start asking questions why are they not covering this. It's a family matter for some of them.

JON SCOTT, HOST: So they don't want to bring embarrassment upon folks who, who they're close to?

GRENELL: Who directly are related to this story. Absolutely. They're covering for them. There's no question about it.

For the record, Ben Sherwood's sister, Dr. Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall, is the Special Assistant to Barack Obama.

Virginia Moseley's husband, Tom Nides, is the Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources.

As for David Rhodes' brother Ben, he is Obama's Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communication.

As ABCNews.com reported Friday, Rhodes was a key player in revising the White House's Benghazi talking points last September:

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.

“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.

Consider, too, that CBS News executives possibly including Rhodes have allegedly come down on their own investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson for "wading dangerously close to advocacy on" Benghazi.

Doctor Fate wrote:Maloney was apparently hired to be former Secretary of State Clinton's personal representative at the hearing. Maybe she should be a bit more subtle about it--perhaps don a "Free Hillary!" t-shirt.

Btw, why does anyone watch Fox? Because we like to know that what we are getting is not being filtered by the White House.

On March 19, the General Counsel of the ODNI, Robert Litt, went up to the House to brief members and staff. All members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, staffers for the Committee, and Boehner and Pelosi were invited.
The senior administration official also says there was a separate briefing by Litt on the Senate side that members of the Senate Intelligence Committee were invited to.
There are a dozen House Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee and seven Republican Senators on the Senate Intelligence Committee. The White House claims they were all invited to briefings on the talking point revisions delivered by Robert Litt of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. The White House didn’t say which Republicans attended and which didn’t. But obviously reporters might ask those dozen Republicans if they attended — or sent staff — and if so, why they didn’t sound the alarm about the revisions previously.
It also needs to be established a bit more clearly what, specifically, the Republicans were briefed on. If they were shown all of the dozen talking point revisions reported on by ABC News last week, as well as the controversial emails about them — which seems like it may be the case — and didn’t see them as problematic at the time, then the plot thickens.

********************************************

UPDATE: I changed “White House” to “Obama administration” in the headline for the sake of accuracy.

UPDATE II: A second White House official says that all of the dozen revisions of the talking points, and all the controversial email traffic reported on lately, was made available to both intelligence committees. This is something that could easily be checked with those GOP officials who attended these briefings.

rickyp wrote:. . . what does it say about the suppossed cover up? Or the value of the hearings?

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.”

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.

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 …”

The paragraph was entirely deleted.

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

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.

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.

“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.”