New Disclosures on Benghazi

[The Big Dog]

Well things certainly have slowed down!

That ABC report was no doubt one hell of an eye opener.

 

[marplots]

Well things certainly have slowed down!

That ABC report was no doubt one hell of an eye opener.

Did it settle things for you? Can we call off the Congressional dogs now?

 

[A'isha]

Well, I'm trying to talk about it, but the other side has me on ignore, so...

 

[elbe]

ABC has obtained access to additional details regarding the Talking Points. Here is one that is simply incredible:

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 …”

Read it for yourself:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/exclusive-benghazi-talking-points-underwent-12-revisions-scrubbed-of-terror-references/

So I've read through the ABC article, the talking points timeline, and the nice "track changes" talking point timeline from the Atlantic Wire (thanks, ANT).

It really sounds political. The state department didn't want to include points that made them look bad. They didn't want to include a note that might prejudice an investigation (I'll assume because the points still say that Ansar al Sharia had denied involvement). Many of the changes are, obviously, simple rewrites that can be ignored ("U.S. Government" instead of "we"). And the mention of the previous attacks is not necessarily pertinent to that one unless the evidence played that out.

So foggy bottom didn't want to look bad (most agencies will probably play CYA) and, it appears, that they didn't want to include certain speculative information that could "prejudice the investigation". The video issue played out through all the revisions; rightly or wrongly that seemed to be where the CIAs evidence was pointing then. Even the parts they wanted excised because they didn't want to look like they ignored warnings doesn't necessarily translate into "they ignored warnings".

Am I missing anything substantial from that article? If not, what then? It doesn't imply anything about the actual incident.

 

[The Big Dog]

HA! You know I am going to say no, right?

I'd like to know more about Nuland's changes, and the Deputies meetings. I thought it was bizarre that she told the CIA to make changes, they made them and the next thing is she is telling them, “resolve all my issues or those of my building leadership,” and State Department leadership was contacting National Security Council officials directly. Moments later, according to the House report, “White House officials responded by stating that the State Department’s concerns would have to be taken into account.”

In other words: we are going over you heads! And then the White House weighs in? Somebody is in trouble.

Did it settle things for you? Can we call off the Congressional dogs now?

Ah, I get it. I answered this once, and now you are back asking the same thing.

I get it.

Thanks for posting.

 

[A'isha]

And it looks like the emphasis on the video and the verbiage about "demonstrations" came entirely from the CIA, and was not the product of any of the State Department requests for revisions.

The only things that State wanted changed were not naming the specific extremists that participated (while keeping the mention that extremists did participate), and removing the references to previous attacks.

 

[marplots]

Ah, I get it. I answered this once, and now you are back asking the same thing.

I get it.

Thanks for posting.

My bad. I thought there was another article to read in between my two requests. I guess things really aren't changed that much with new information, are they?

Funny how that works.

 

[The Big Dog]

Am I missing anything substantial from that article? If not, what then? It doesn't imply anything about the actual incident.

Well, the lede:

"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."

 

[elbe]

Well things certainly have slowed down!

That ABC report was no doubt one hell of an eye opener.

It just took me time to get through all the resources and compose a reply.

Something I would appreciate, if you're willing, is if you could give me a, let's say, personal analysis of the article - like, I guess, explain in your own words what the eye opener was and what it means to the larger picture.

Well, I'm trying to talk about it, but the other side has me on ignore, so...

I've appreciated your links, does that count?

 

[A'isha]

I've appreciated your links, does that count?

Yes, thank you.

 

[elbe]

Well, the lede:

"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."

I'm not entirely convinced that that's a particularly dramatic revelation. Obviously I could be wrong - heck, I think the miura is the best looking lambo, so I'm used to being wrong!

 

[RandFan]

Well, I'm trying to talk about it, but the other side has me on ignore, so...

I wasn't going to lurk or comment further but to be honest I find myself drawn to this issue.

I think you have done an outstanding job. Things got snarky on both sides (myself included of course) but the links and the summaries have been very good.

Thank you.

 

[A'isha]

I'm not entirely convinced that that's a particularly dramatic revelation.

Especially since the thing that has gotten the right all worked up, the memo's reference to the video being the root cause of the attacks and the mention of demonstrations being involved, had nothing to do with the State Department or the White House, but was all the intelligence community's doing.

 

[RandFan]

Especially since the thing that has gotten the right all worked up, the memo's reference to the video being the root cause of the attacks and the mention of demonstrations being involved, had nothing to do with the the State Department or the White House, but was all the intelligence community's doing.

And that seems to be the most salient issue. I think elbe is correct, it's more CYA than anything else.

 

[elbe]

Especially since the thing that has gotten the right all worked up, the memo's reference to the video being the root cause of the attacks and the mention of demonstrations being involved, had nothing to do with the the State Department or the White House, but was all the intelligence community's doing.

It's also possible that the WH doesn't/didn't believe that State's requested changes significantly impacted the intelligence contained. Or, it's entirely possible it's a whole lot of CYA.

I'm particularly hoping 16.5, or Newtons Bit if he'd like, give me their own analyses. It's easier to understand someone's position if they spell it out as opposed to just arguing with mine (not that there's anything wrong with that, it's just not as helpful sometimes).

 

[Travis]

"It matters to me personally, and it matters to my colleagues, to my colleagues at the Department of State." "It matters to the American public for whom we serve. And most importantly, it matters to the friends and family of Ambassador Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty, Tyrone Woods, who were murdered on September 11, 2012."

Eric Nordstrom 5/8/13

I'd love to hear how getting to the bottom of who knew if the attacks were about a video or not and when they knew it will really matter to the deceased's families.

I'm guessing it won't.

In fact I'd love to hear how this investigation can possibly lead to anything even remotely positive.

 

[The Big Dog]

It's also possible that the WH doesn't/didn't believe that State's requested changes significantly impacted the intelligence contained. Or, it's entirely possible it's a whole lot of CYA.

I'm particularly hoping 16.5, or Newtons Bit if he'd like, give me their own analyses. It's easier to understand someone's position if they spell it out as opposed to just arguing with mine (not that there's anything wrong with that, it's just not as helpful sometimes).

Honestly, I am just trying to keep up. This thing is exploding all over the place.

For example, I just read a brand new article that suggest that what Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said about the changes in November were false, and I have not had a second to figure out what in fact he said then. In other words. I can't make a fair assessment of it.

Hell, I can barely tell what is even up to date anymore, I read something and realized it came out before the ABC piece. It is out of date already.

 

[Newtons Bit]

It's also possible that the WH doesn't/didn't believe that State's requested changes significantly impacted the intelligence contained. Or, it's entirely possible it's a whole lot of CYA.

I'm particularly hoping 16.5, or Newtons Bit if he'd like, give me their own analyses. It's easier to understand someone's position if they spell it out as opposed to just arguing with mine (not that there's anything wrong with that, it's just not as helpful sometimes).

Position on what, exactly?

 

[jj]

Honestly, I am just trying to keep up. This thing is exploding all over the place.

Really? Where, outside of the conservative blogosphere?

 

[The Big Dog]

Really? Where, outside of the conservative blogosphere?

Seriously? Check Google news, right now.

Top Stories
New York Daily News

Benghazi memo edits show State, White House involvement
USA TODAY
33 minutes ago



Written by
Oren Dorell





A top State Department official pressed the CIA and the White House to delete any mention of terrorism in public statements on the Benghazi terror attack to prevent critics from blaming lax security at the consulate, according to documents obtained by ABC ...
Benghazi Documents Scrubbed of Terror Reference: ABC News Digital ReportABC News
WH holds off-the-record Benghazi briefingPolitico (blog)
Highly Cited:After Benghazi revelations, heads will rollBBC News
Opinion:The real Benghazi priceNew York Post
In Depth:Benghazi memos reportedly revised 12 times, official 'concerned' they would hurt ...Fox News
Related: United States Department of State » Susan Rice » White House »

ABC News


BBC News

The Weekly Standard (blog)

Politico

Independent Online



Check ABC, **** check anywhere.