People Died Obama Lied-Talking Points-12 Revisions

Something the Dog Said wrote: OMG, 12 revisions! How dare they! A staffer revised the points before they were released. That is outrageous!!!!!!!
Oh wait, what were the revisions?

http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/B ... meline.pdf
Both the initial draft created by the CIA and the final draft said the Benghazi attacks were "spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo."
The initial draft described the attackers as "Islamic extremists" while the final draft described them as "extremists."
The initial draft said press reports had linked Ansar al-Sharia to the attack, but added that the group had denied ordering it in a statement. The initial draft nonetheless did not rule out that some of its members may have participated. The final draft didn't include any mention of Ansar al-Sharia.
The initial draft referred to previous incidents of violence in Benghazi conducted by unidentified attackers. The final draft excluded this.


So the basic facts are that the CIA initially informed the State Department that the violence was due to the violence at the US embassy in Cairo. And that those involved were "extremists" not "terrorists".

Well that was really earth shaking.

You are really starting to show your lack of objectivity.

"objectivity"? Coming from those who are hell bound to blame the POTUS and/or former SOS for an "outrage" without having any objective evidence that an "outrage" occurred. Initially the "outrage" was that POTUS failed to take adequate measures to protect the diplomatic mission when it was really the GOP who had cut the funding for diplomatic security. Then the "outrage" was that POTUS refused to send in military troops in time to save the ambassador, when it has now been made clear that the only detail available was ordered by the military to maintain security in Tripoli. Then the "outrage" became that POTUS did not immediately call the attack the work of "terrorists" when in truth he immediately referred to it as an act of terror. Then the "outrage" became that the UN ambassador erroneously claimed the attack was spontaneous due to the riots in Cairo, now it is clear that is what the CIA had informed her that it was. Then there is the "outrage" that somehow former SOS was somehow responsible for something, although what exactly is unclear. There is the "outrage" that GOP needs to subpoena the former SOS even though she has already testified under oath. There have been other "outrages" although they have not exactly been clear, only that somehow POTUS and/or SOS committed some heinous act to be specified later. Now the "outrage" appears to be that some staffer at the State Dept. helped edit the talking points that Congress had demanded from the State Dept. and that deleting a couple of references to Islam and Al Queada (which Petreaus had also requested so not to tip the groups off) is an impeachable offense.

Just what is the "outrage" that has been brought forth at this time? Specifics?

Something the Dog Said wrote: "objectivity"? Coming from those who are hell bound to blame the POTUS and/or former SOS for an "outrage" without having any objective evidence that an "outrage" occurred. Initially the "outrage" was that POTUS failed to take adequate measures to protect the diplomatic mission when it was really the GOP who had cut the funding for diplomatic security. Then the "outrage" was that POTUS refused to send in military troops in time to save the ambassador, when it has now been made clear that the only detail available was ordered by the military to maintain security in Tripoli. Then the "outrage" became that POTUS did not immediately call the attack the work of "terrorists" when in truth he immediately referred to it as an act of terror. Then the "outrage" became that the UN ambassador erroneously claimed the attack was spontaneous due to the riots in Cairo, now it is clear that is what the CIA had informed her that it was. Then there is the "outrage" that somehow former SOS was somehow responsible for something, although what exactly is unclear. There is the "outrage" that GOP needs to subpoena the former SOS even though she has already testified under oath. There have been other "outrages" although they have not exactly been clear, only that somehow POTUS and/or SOS committed some heinous act to be specified later. Now the "outrage" appears to be that some staffer at the State Dept. helped edit the talking points that Congress had demanded from the State Dept. and that deleting a couple of references to Islam and Al Queada (which Petreaus had also requested so not to tip the groups off) is an impeachable offense.

Just what is the "outrage" that has been brought forth at this time? Specifics?

Right... you have no objectivity... period. This tale tale from the administration ("We're going to have that person arrested and prosecuted that did the video," said Hillary Clinton.) is falling apart right before your eyes (and most of the liberal media) yet you feel everything is alright in the Emerald City.

Let's hear a little more objectivity from the BBC (the BBC... you're kidding... the bastion of liberalism in Europe)...

There's new evidence, obtained by ABC, that the Obama administration did deliberately purge references to "terrorism" from accounts of the attack on the Benghazi diplomatic mission, which killed four people including the US ambassador to Libya.

This is the first hard evidence that the state department did ask for changes to the CIA's original assessment.

Specifically, they wanted references to previous warnings deleted and this sentence removed: "We do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa'ida participated in the attack."

(In the interests of full disclosure I have to say I have not in the past been persuaded that allegations of a cover-up were a big deal. It seemed to me a partisan attack based on very little.)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-cana ... WEET751125

The only one being partisan NOW is YOU.

And DOG... what about Petraeus... once again you omit critical points...

In an email at 2:44 p.m. to Chip Walter, head of the CIA’s legislative affairs office, Petraeus expressed frustration at the new, scrubbed talking points, noting that they had been stripped of much of the content his agency had provided. Petraeus noted with evident disappointment that the policymakers had even taken out the line about the CIA’s warning on Cairo. The CIA director, long regarded as a team player, declined to pick a fight with the White House and seemed resigned to the propagation of the administration’s preferred narrative. The final decisions about what to tell the American people rest with the national security staff, he reminded Walter, and not with the CIA.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/ ... 22032.html

You're editing again.

I going to go get some popcorn and watch this comedy take down Hillary and/or Obama.

And don't forget that on Nov 28th of last year, Jay Carney said that the only changes made to the talking points from the CIA " The SINGLE adjustment that was made to those talking points, by either of these two institutions, were changing the word consulate to diplomatic facility because consolate was inaccurate."

We now know that this can be only one of two options, he was lying, or he was just didn't know what he was talking about. Transparency my ass.

Will Obama throw Hilary under the bus if this story gets legs?

1) Failure to adequately assess the danger in Libya after the removal of Kadaffi, especially, the upsurge of Al Quaida.
2) Failure to adequately protect the foreign staff, even after the ambassador asked for extra help.
3) Failure to prepare for the 9/11 date, with enough assets to protect staff.
4) Inability to give America the truth after the event.
5) Letting the Libyans dictate how the investigation was handled. We are a freaking superpower begging for permission to investigate the murder of American citizens with an inexperienced goverment. We should have come in heavy and just set up shop.

Rick wrote: And don't forget that on Nov 28th of last year, Jay Carney said that the only changes made to the talking points from the CIA " The SINGLE adjustment that was made to those talking points, by either of these two institutions, were changing the word consulate to diplomatic facility because consolate was inaccurate."

We now know that this can be only one of two options, he was lying, or he was just didn't know what he was talking about. Transparency my ass.

:splat: Poor Jay Carney. His stomach must just be a big ball of acid every night covering up for these incompetents.

Rick wrote: And don't forget that on Nov 28th of last year, Jay Carney said that the only changes made to the talking points from the CIA " The SINGLE adjustment that was made to those talking points, by either of these two institutions, were changing the word consulate to diplomatic facility because consolate was inaccurate."

We now know that this can be only one of two options, he was lying, or he was just didn't know what he was talking about. Transparency my ass.

That it just outrageous, that a spokesman who had no role in the revisions by the State Department staffer made a mistake in a minor point. Just outrageous!

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote: And DOG... what about Petraeus... once again you omit critical points...

In an email at 2:44 p.m. to Chip Walter, head of the CIA’s legislative affairs office, Petraeus expressed frustration at the new, scrubbed talking points, noting that they had been stripped of much of the content his agency had provided. Petraeus noted with evident disappointment that the policymakers had even taken out the line about the CIA’s warning on Cairo. The CIA director, long regarded as a team player, declined to pick a fight with the White House and seemed resigned to the propagation of the administration’s preferred narrative. The final decisions about what to tell the American people rest with the national security staff, he reminded Walter, and not with the CIA.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/ ... 22032.html

You're editing again.

Nope, my post was 100% accurate:
David H. Petraeus, the former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, told lawmakers on Friday that classified intelligence reports revealed that the deadly assault on the American diplomatic mission in Libya was a terrorist attack, but that the administration refrained from saying it suspected that the perpetrators of the attack were Al Qaeda affiliates and sympathizers to avoid tipping off the groups.
Mr. Petraeus, who resigned last week after admitting to an extramarital affair, said the names of groups suspected in the attack — including Al Qaeda’s franchise in North Africa and a local Libyan group, Ansar al-Shariah — were removed from the public explanation of the attack immediately after the assault to avoiding alerting the militants that American intelligence and law enforcement agencies were tracking them, lawmakers said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/17/world ... .html?_r=0
You really need to work a bit harder on your "outrages".