General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsPresenting the talking point revisions that GOPers hope will destroy Hillary (spoiler: they won't)
by Jed Lewison
Another day, another breathtaking revelation about the the BenghaziWhiteWaterGate Coverup:
When it became clear last fall that the CIAs 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.
You can read all 12 versions here, but here are some highlights:
- 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.
First and foremost, the evolution of the talking points shows that the CIA's belief that attacks were "spontaneously inspired" was consistent from start to finish. That turned out to be a bad analysis, but as the administration has said all along, it was the CIA's analysis from the beginning.
Second, changing "Islamic extremist" to "extremist" reflected a longstanding Obama administration strategy of avoiding rhetoric that would unintentionally antagonize the Muslim world. Republicans may disagree with that strategy, but there's nothing secret about it. (Also, is anyone really worried about the possibility that not saying "Islamic extremists" will confuse some folks into thinking they were actually talking about "Baptist extremists" or some such?)
Third, the information about Ansar al-Sharia was publicly available. Moreover, the CIA has already explained why it was removed from the initial talking points: It did not want to alert specific groups or individuals that they were under suspicion. Even if you disagree with that reasoning, it's still a fact that we've known for more than six months why these groups were scrubbed. There's nothing new here.
Republicans will probably zero in on the fourth change, removing the information about previous attacks in Benghazi, because in subsequent revisions the CIA changed the talking points to say that they had warned the State Department about al-Qaeda extremists in Benghazi. The State Department's spokeswoman pushed back on that talking point, saying that she worried it would fuel politically motivated attacks from Congress and that it sounded like an attempt by the CIA to cover its ass. It's hard to argue with her assessment, given how things have played out. That being said, nothing in the talking points indicated that the CIA had offered any sort of specific warning about the Benghazi attack in particular. Given the lack of a specific connection to the attack, the talking point really wasn't germane.
Again, there are definitely some new details here, but they are consistent with what we've already known. Republicans will certainly latch onto the "new" factor to try and score political points, but at the end of the day, the information here makes it even tougher for them to make their case. Of course, they're so deluded about Benghazi there's basically no chance of them coming to grips with that fact.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/05/10/1208214/-Presenting-the-talking-point-revisions-that-GOPers-hope-will-destroy-Hillary-spoiler-they-won-t
Inhofe Suggests Obama May Be Impeached Over Benghazi
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022825026
I love this comment response to the Daily Kos post:
The Obama Administration could have called this tragedy the "Super Duper Ultra Evil Jihadist Terrorist Bad Guy-palooza" and the GOP would be holding hearings on why such language didn't include exclamation points.
Ronald Reagan lost 220 United States Marines to a terrorist bombing in Beirut in 1983, and they still want him on Mount Rushmore. The hypocrisy is staggering beyond words.
http://www.dailykos.com/comments/1208214/50140998#c9
Note:
dkf
(37,305 posts)Or are we asserting that Carney's statements that the changes were made at the CIA stand?
Is it normal for the President's spokesman to be caught like this?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"The question is why did State let Jay Carney say things we now know are untrue."
...because Carney's mouth is independent of State, much in the same way as Rice's mouth.
Are you thinking this needs to be investigated?
dkf
(37,305 posts)Being so oblivious to the danger and having no contingency plans (how many hours away was the nearest help?) seems to be the crux of the matter.
This other stuff is so silly, why did they have to let the misrepresentation occur? Isn't that political malpractice? And to document it!!!!! Geez Louise.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Also, the only scandal here is that Amb. Rice wasn't qualified to give such an opinion.
"Less so than why we let the situation deteriorate so badly in the first place"
...because Republicans cut the security budget?
Or maybe it's because attacks happen.
Dear Useless Republicans, please STFU on Benghazi
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022815985
dkf
(37,305 posts)We were too complacent.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Also, how would it have cost nothing?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Getting the man out or not letting him be in a vulnerable place on 9/11 would have cost nothing. We were too complacent."
...you're going the route of outrage, but that's your opinion, not a scandal.
dkf
(37,305 posts)You can't think this was all done well.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"How is it not obvious we were too complacent?"
...that it's "obvious" to you? People are focused calling out the GOP for its bullshit attempt to frame this as a scandal, and you're focused on your opinion about whether or not someone was "complacent," which isn't a scandal.
dkf
(37,305 posts)Both sides.
I don't want government protected. I want it to work.
Both sides.
I don't want government protected. I want it to work.
...what's there to "solve"? You're presenting an opinion about complacency. That's not a "problem" to be solved. It's your opinion, and it has nothing to do with the GOP's fake scandal.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)dkf
(37,305 posts)If we feel government is the answer we need one that runs well.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Sounds like you're anti-government. I mean, that comment smacks of Republican apologia, the basic gist is: Republicans don't "feel government is the answer" so therefore, "government incompetence only hurts Democrats,"
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)People start questioning why were involved in so many areas of the world.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,207 posts)dkf
(37,305 posts)If this is all about a turf war it's WORSE because that means this isn't the only case where this type of thing is going on. That shows DYSFUNCTION and a need to reevaluate all circumstances where this sort of thing puts people in danger.
Sunlight is the only thing that will help resolve these issues.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,207 posts)Obama, personally, or the apparatus that makes up the Obama administration? I'm still waiting for you to quantify how "Obama's being too sensitive about this".
dkf
(37,305 posts)If we have to learn anything through reporters or testimony that is all information we could have been given. Get it out first...innoculate.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,207 posts)that we learned absolutely nothing we didn't already know from the first NINE (9) hearings. I realize you're on the Joe Liebermann end of the spectrum, and the two of you agree with Repubs in matters of foreign policy & national security. However, for those of us who don't get our news from Fox, this was a dud. The panel on Diahn Rhem's show agreed that the buildup to the hearing was aimed at working up a public lather, but honest journalists, without an agenda opine that the testimony didn't give them anything new.
dkf
(37,305 posts)This looks a whole lot like blowback. We never learn.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,207 posts)or NOT!
dkf
(37,305 posts)We create situations, we put our people in harms way, we don't have plans to save them? I'm not going to pretend I find that acceptable.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,207 posts)You're in admirable company.
Common Sense Party
(14,139 posts)I don't know who, but somebody is behind the leaking of these rough drafts:
http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/Benghazi%20Talking%20Points%20Timeline.pdf