New Disclosures on Benghazi

[elbe]

The Washington Post is "a left wing blog of nitwits"?

Hi, are you new to this thread?

 

[A'isha]

From the left wing blog of nitwits Washington Post article:

A close reading of recently released government e-mails that were sent during the editing process, and interviews with senior officials from several government agencies, reveal Petraeus’s early role and ambitions in going well beyond the committee’s request, apparently to produce a set of talking points favorable to his image and his agency.

The information Petraeus ordered up when he returned to his Langley office that morning included far more than the minimalist version that Ruppersberger had requested. It included early classified intelligence assessments of who might be responsible for the attack and an account of prior CIA warnings — information that put Petraeus at odds with the State Department, the FBI and senior officials within his own agency.

The only government entity that did not object to the detailed talking points produced with Petraeus’s input was the White House, which played the role of mediator in the bureaucratic fight that at various points included the CIA’s top lawyer and the agency’s deputy director expressing opposition to what the director wanted.

[...]

After Petraeus’s morning coffee on Sept. 14, the CIA’s Office of Terrorism Analysis sent an internal agency e-mail with the subject line: “FLASH coordination — white paper for HPSCI,” referring to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

The committee “has asked for unclassified points immediately that they can use in talking to the media,” the e-mail said.

Then, shifting into the first person, the office’s director, who had accompanied Petraeus to the coffee, wrote, “I have been asked to provide a bit on responsibility,” including “warnings we gave to Cairo prior to the demonstration, as well as material on warnings we issued prior to 9/11 anniversary.”

[...]

Republicans would later contend that the CIA had wanted to tell the truth about what unfolded that day but that the State Department, with White House support, removed the information for political reasons amid a heated presidential campaign.

But the e-mails reveal that the initial talking points also generated tension and confusion within the CIA, as officials sought to understand how Petraeus’s requests squared with what the committee had asked for.

[...]

Rhodes responded, “We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation,” and suggested that the issue be resolved the next morning during a previously scheduled meeting of the national security deputies.

“We’ve tried to work the draft talking points for HPSCI through the coordination process but have run into major problems,” the CIA’s Office of Public Affairs wrote to Petraeus at 9:52 p.m. Sept. 14. “The White House cleared quickly, but State has major concerns.”

[...]

In an e-mail sent two hours later to Morell and others inside the agency, Petraeus wrote, “No mention of the cable to Cairo, either? Frankly, I’d just as soon not use this, then. . . [National Security Council] call, to be sure; however, this is certainly not what Vice Chairman Ruppersberger was hoping to get for unclas use.”

Asked about Petraeus’s warning, Ruppersberger said, “I’m not sure what he meant. I had no expectations.”

 

[The Big Dog]

The Washington Post is "a left wing blog of nitwits"?

Not what I said. The link was not to the Washington Post. Why are you misrepresenting the actual link?? tsk, tsk, tsk.

It was to PolicusUSA "Real Liberal Politics" or some such rag. Who said this:

"It was Republican hero, General David Petraeus, then the head of the CIA, who sought to burnish his image with demands to change the talking points."

That is NOT what the WP article says, and in fact is pants on head stupid.

 

[A'isha]

Not what I said. The link was not to the Washington Post. Why are you misrepresenting the actual link?? tsk, tsk, tsk.

Because I don't care about that, I care about the article.

You, on the other hand, seem to want to avoid talking about the article, which is why you're devoting your posts to ad hominems and irrelevancies about the site that linked to the article.

 

[A'isha]

Hi, are you new to this thread?

Sometimes it feels like it.

 

[The Big Dog]

Because I don't care about that, I care about the article.

You, on the other hand, seem to want to avoid talking about the article, which is why you're devoting your posts to ad hominems and irrelevancies about the site that linked to the article.

I am talking about the article, ANTPogo. The one that was linked in this thread. the one that I directly quoted from.

the one that said this lie:

"It was Republican hero, General David Petraeus, then the head of the CIA, who sought to burnish his image with demands to change the talking points."

The one I said this about:

"That is NOT what the WP article says, and in fact is pants on head stupid."

What is traditional, ANTPogo is before you move the goal posts to at least acknowledge that you did so.

"Yes, 16.5 every single thing you said is accurate. However, I would now like to discuss the actual article that should have been linked, rather than that partisan hunk of nonsense that actually was, to wit: blah blah blah."

 

[The Big Dog]

Hi, are you new to this thread?

I was referring to the PoliticusUSA link, not the Washington Post.

I am sorry that ANTPogo felt it was not something he cared about.

 

[elbe]

I was referring to the PoliticusUSA link, not the Washington Post.

I am sorry that ANTPogo felt it was not something he cared about.

I seem to recall you making some other interesting claims about "blogs".

I'm sorry you didn't feel like answering the first part of this post.

 

[A'isha]

I am talking about the article, ANTPogo. The one that was linked in this thread. the one that I directly quoted from.

the one that said this lie:

"It was Republican hero, General David Petraeus, then the head of the CIA, who sought to burnish his image with demands to change the talking points."

The one I said this about:

"That is NOT what the WP article says, and in fact is pants on head stupid."

Except it is, in fact, what the WP article says:

A close reading of recently released government e-mails that were sent during the editing process, and interviews with senior officials from several government agencies, reveal Petraeus’s early role and ambitions in going well beyond the committee’s request, apparently to produce a set of talking points favorable to his image and his agency.
The information Petraeus ordered up when he returned to his Langley office that morning included far more than the minimalist version that Ruppersberger had requested. It included early classified intelligence assessments of who might be responsible for the attack and an account of prior CIA warnings — information that put Petraeus at odds with the State Department, the FBI and senior officials within his own agency.

Sorry.

 

[The Big Dog]

I seem to recall you making some other interesting claims about "blogs".

I sure did.

 

[The Big Dog]

Except it is, in fact, what the WP article says:

Sorry.

FACEPALM. You might want to look up the dictionary definition of "demands" and "change."

 

[The Big Dog]

I seem to recall you making some other interesting claims about "blogs".

I'm sorry you didn't feel like answering the first part of this post.

I'm sorry I didn't notice your edit.

Here is my answer:

1. false dichotomy

2. irrelevant because Pickering and Issa have made peace.

Pick one.

 

[A'isha]

FACEPALM. You might want to look up the dictionary definition of "demands" and "change."

He "ordered up" (demanded) a memo that contained far more than what the committee requested (changes), in order to create talking points "favorable to his image and his agency" (burnish his image).

No wonder you keep harping on the political slant of PoliticsUSA. You don't want to talk about what the Washington Post article says.

 

[A'isha]

I'm sorry I didn't notice your edit.

Here is my answer:

1. false dichotomy

What choice is there other than the ones presented?

2. irrelevant because Pickering and Issa have made peace.

How does the agreement that Pickering and Issa have now made change the fact that Issa claimed he would have allowed Pickering to testify at the hearing on May 8th if the Democrats had called him as a witness despite only giving notification the day before the hearing, so then why didn't Issa himself call Pickering as a witness?

 

[The Big Dog]

He "ordered up" (demanded) a memo that contained far more than what the committee requested (changes), in order to create talking points "favorable to his image and his agency" (burnish his image).

Bwhahaha!!! Can a brother get a laughing dog?

Oh man, as for the Washington Post nonsense, time to first lie? that the initial draft included classified assessments of who was responsible.

Somebody should have told Elizabeth Jones that she was giving "classified" information to the Libyans.

/shhhh: Don't tell Ansar al Sharia that we think they did it, based in part on the fact that they announced it on an affiliated Face Book page, and because they were identified in the press the next day, it is a secret!

 

[A'isha]

Somebody should have told Elizabeth Jones that she was giving "classified" information to the Libyans.

I see you still apparently don't comprehend the difference between a private conversation between a State Department official and a foreign Ambassador, and talking points intended for wide public distribution.

EDIT:

/shhhh: Don't tell Ansar al Sharia that we think they did it, based in part on the fact that they announced it on an affiliated Face Book page, and because they were identified in the press the next day, it is a secret!

I see you also keep conveniently forgetting that Ansar al-Sharia was very public in their denials, making the knowledge of how we knew it was them something that the CIA themselves preferred to keep secret, to the point where they scrubbed the details from the memo rather than provide those details to Nuland when she specifically asked for that information.

 

[The Big Dog]

I see you still apparently don't comprehend the difference between a private conversation between a State Department official and a foreign Ambassador, and talking points intended for wide public distribution.

and you appear not to know what classified information is and when you are being lied to by the press.

Ansar al Sharia was not removed from the talking points because it was "classified."

And "extremists linked to Al Qua'ida was not 'changed' because Petreaus wanted to burnish his image.

What a silly article.

 

[elbe]

and you appear not to know what classified information is and when you are being lied to by the press.

Ansar al Sharia was not removed from the talking points because it was "classified."

It may have been because it was, at the time, speculative.

 

[The Big Dog]

It may have been because it was, at the time, speculative.

I understand that, I don't agree with it, but I get it.

Too bad the WP made up some nonsense about it being classified.

Maybe the article would have been better had they looked at this email:

Describing a conversation she had with then-Libyan ambassador Ali Aujali, Jones wrote in the previously undisclosed email that 'I told him that the group that conducted the attacks, Ansar al-Sharia, is affiliated with Islamic terrorists.'

 

[A'isha]

and you appear not to know what classified information is and when you are being lied to by the press.

Really? You think that because Jones gave the info in private to an Ambassador, that it was information suited for wide public release in talking points?

Ansar al Sharia was not removed from the talking points because it was "classified."

How we knew it was Ansar al-Sharia, though, was. And the how had nothing to do with facebook or twitter.

And "extremists linked to Al Qua'ida was not 'changed' because Petreaus wanted to burnish his image.

It was in there because Petraeus wanted to burnish his image.

What a silly article.

It torpedoes your narrative and confirms what we've been saying all along. Naturally you don't like it.

Too bad the WP made up some nonsense about it being classified.

When Nuland asked the CIA for information about how we knew that extremist groups like Ansar al-Sharia were involved in the attack, because she knew that whoever used the talking points memo would be asked that same question, why did the CIA prefer to remove the information about who was involved rather than give Nuland the details she asked for about how we knew they were involved?