New Disclosures on Benghazi

[The Big Dog]

The White House didn't object either. They cleared the early version of the memo.



No. Did she give the Ambassador classified information, like how the CIA got its information?

Cool, neither did the drafts of the talking points! Awesome, you and I are really not that far apart when you think it through.

 

[A'isha]

Cool, neither did the drafts of the talking points! Awesome, you and I are really not that far apart when you think it through.

Are you going to explain why you think the CIA watered down the memo rather than give Nuland the information she asked for?

 

[The Big Dog]

Are you going to explain why you think the CIA watered down the memo rather than give Nuland the information she asked for?

Because NSS told them to remove it (she only asked for the info if it went in the talking points, which we know it didn't).

 

[A'isha]

Because NSS told them to.

No, NSS did not tell them to remove it. In fact, the edits that Brennan himself made to that very sentence shortly before Nuland's request left the "we do know" verbiage completely unaltered.

The email that said "guys, can we soften this a bit" in response to Nuland's request was sent by a CIA employee.

 

[RandFan]

Because NSS told them to remove it (she only asked for the info if it went in the talking points, which we know it didn't).

Do you have evidence that NSS told them to remove it?

 

[The Big Dog]

No, NSS did not tell them to remove it. In fact, the edits that Brennan himself made to that very sentence shortly before Nuland's request left the "we do know" verbiage completely unaltered.

The email that said "guys, can we soften this a bit" in response to Nuland's request was sent by a CIA employee.

I said NSS. Search there, and all will be revealed.

 

[A'isha]

I said NSS.

I know you did. It still wasn't the NSS that told the CIA to water down the memo in response to Nuland's request.

Search there, and all will be revealed.

You can back up your own claims, thanks.

 

[The Big Dog]

I know you did. It still wasn't the NSS that told the CIA to water down the memo in response to Nuland's request.



You can back up your own claims, thanks.

On phone. Can't. NSS.

Easy.

Oh, thanks though.

 

[A'isha]

On phone. Can't. NSS.

NSS. Had. Nothing. To. Do. With. Nuland's. Request. About. More. Info. On. Knowing. There. Were. Extremists.

 

[The Big Dog]

NSS. Had. Nothing. To. Do. With. Nuland's. Request. About. More. Info. On. Knowing. There. Were. Extremists.

Never said it did. Focus.

 

[A'isha]

Never said it did. Focus.

Oh?

Because NSS told them to remove it (she only asked for the info if it went in the talking points, which we know it didn't).

You might want to get your story straight.

 

[The Big Dog]

Oh?

You might want to get your story straight.

Read it again. NSS told them to remove it from the talking points.

Nuland asked for info if the claim went in he talking points. It did not rendering Nuland's request, moot.

Please, focus

 

[A'isha]

Read it again. NSS told them to remove it from the talking points.

No, NSS did no such thing.

NSS, in fact, was not involved in any of the email discussions about Nuland's request for more information and the CIA's subsequent decision to water down the memo as a result of that request. The specific verbiage that the sentence was changed to was suggested by another agency entirely, and the NSS never even saw it until after the change had been made.

Nuland asked for info if the claim went in he talking points. It did not rendering Nuland's request, moot.

Nuland was also not the only person expressing concerns about that sentence. The NSS, however, did not get involved at all with the discussion about that sentence. The claim about definitive knowledge didn't get into the talking points because of that other agency's concerns combined with the CIA's decision to water down the memo instead of providing Nuland with the additional information she requested, not because of the NSS.

The NSS, as I said, had nothing at all to do with any step of the process at all.

Please, focus

You seem rather confused about all this. Maybe you ought to take your own advice?

 

[The Big Dog]

No, NSS did no such thing.

NSS, in fact, was not involved in any of the email discussions about Nuland's request for more information and the CIA's subsequent decision to water down the memo as a result of that request. The specific verbiage that the sentence was changed to was suggested by another agency entirely, and the NSS never even saw it until after the change had been made.



Nuland was also not the only person expressing concerns about that sentence. The NSS, however, did not get involved at all with the discussion about that sentence. The claim about definitive knowledge didn't get into the talking points because of that other agency's concerns combined with the CIA's decision to water down the memo instead of providing Nuland with the additional information she requested, not because of the NSS.

The NSS, as I said, had nothing at all to do with any step of the process at all.



You seem rather confused about all this. Maybe you ought to take your own advice?

Wrong. Put aside the obvious (Petreaus saying it was their call to make the talking points into pure pablum) there is another reference to NSS in the thread that I already mentioned that answers you question.

NSS told them to remove the reference. Rendering Nuland's request? Moot!

End. Of. Story.

 

[A'isha]

Wrong. Put aside the obvious (Petreaus saying it was their call to make the talking points into pure pablum) there is another reference to NSS in the thread that I already mentioned that answers you question.

What reference would that be?

NSS told them to remove the reference.

Which email shows the NSS telling the CIA to change "That being said, we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa'ida participated in the attack" to "That being said, there are indications that Islamic extremists participated in the violent demonstrations" as a result of Nuland's request?

End. Of. Story.

Yes.

Yes it is.

 

[The Big Dog]

What reference would that be?



Which email shows the NSS telling the CIA to change "That being said, we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa'ida participated in the attack" to "That being said, there are indications that Islamic extremists participated in the violent demonstrations" as a result of Nuland's request?



Yes.

Yes it is.

The one I already mentioned in this thread! I already said that, jiminy cripes!

 

[A'isha]

The one I already mentioned in this thread! I already said that, jiminy cripes!

Then it ought to be a simple matter for you to provide a link to that post.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

41 pages and not one material fact has changed. The first draft contained references to the riot. The final memo contained references to the riot. There was a plausible and evidence backed narrative for the riot explanation.

I don't think it will be difficult to get to 50 pages.

 

[RandFan]

The one I already mentioned in this thread! I already said that, jiminy cripes!

Then it ought to be a simple matter for you to provide a link to that post.

Here we go again with that little game.

How many times must you be told that the burden of proof is yours. No one is buying this little game of "I already posted it".

 

[The Big Dog]

Then it ought to be a simple matter for you to provide a link to that post.

No actually, it is not, ANTPogo. I had to get up and fire up the laptop.

You could have done it, but no.

So now the laptop is on, and connected to the wifi for the first time in a couple of weeks. Why? Because ANTPogo, of course!

"Yeah, but it was misleading because FBI didn't object to the draft talking points, and the in-house CIA instructions in fact mentioned NSS/DOJ/FBI, which puts the ball right in the White House's lap."

In their lap. Do not generate statements about responsibility, even internally (by the way, WTF?) 4:20 email. Can you at least look that up in the WP article?

By the way, look forward to your response on DOJ/FBI concerns, blah blah blah.

And I'll remind you of what we are really talking about: whether or not the White House had its hands all over this, answer? Hell yeah.