Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
Fri May 10, 2013, 12:35 PM May 2013

Presenting the talking point revisions that GOPers hope will destroy Hillary (spoiler: they won't)

Presenting 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 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.

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.
When you review the documents, the changes are numerous, but they are nonetheless consistent with what we already knew. ABC's report does reveal some new specifics about the feedback The White House and State Department gave to the CIA in developing the talking points, but those specifics don't support the GOP's coverup allegations.

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:


It just doesn't matter

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:

Kos Media, LLC Site content may be used for any purpose without explicit permission unless otherwise specified



26 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Presenting the talking point revisions that GOPers hope will destroy Hillary (spoiler: they won't) (Original Post) ProSense May 2013 OP
The question is why did State let Jay Carney say things we now know are untrue. dkf May 2013 #1
I think it's ProSense May 2013 #2
Less so than why we let the situation deteriorate so badly in the first place. dkf May 2013 #3
The situation deteriorated so fast because of agency turf wars most likely. JaneyVee May 2013 #5
Maybe ProSense May 2013 #6
Getting the man out or not letting him be in a vulnerable place on 9/11 would have cost nothing. dkf May 2013 #7
The whistleblowers claim he wanted to go, even with knowledge of lax security. JaneyVee May 2013 #8
Well, I suppose ProSense May 2013 #9
How is it not obvious we were too complacent? dkf May 2013 #14
Isn't it good enough ProSense May 2013 #16
That's the problem...people are too wrapped up in partisanship to solve anything. dkf May 2013 #19
Wait ProSense May 2013 #21
Doesn't garner this much psychotic outrage from the GOP. JaneyVee May 2013 #17
Government incompetence only hurts Democrats. dkf May 2013 #20
"If we feel government is the answer we need one that runs well." ProSense May 2013 #23
Not when it comes to the military, incompetence proves our empire's reach is too big. JaneyVee May 2013 #25
He has stated that "Obama's being too sensitive about this". I asked how, and got no response. Tarheel_Dem May 2013 #4
By being so defensive and not getting all the info out immediately. dkf May 2013 #10
Can you cite any example of his being "so defensive", preferably with a link. Are you talking about Tarheel_Dem May 2013 #12
They are not being forthcoming. dkf May 2013 #13
I've been listening to commentators that I trust much more than you, and the concensus seems to be.. Tarheel_Dem May 2013 #15
I'm anti war which is why this Libya situation rankles me to no end. dkf May 2013 #18
So you're concerned about what "it looks like". Got it. Oh, and thanks for those links..... Tarheel_Dem May 2013 #22
And why shouldn't we all expect more? dkf May 2013 #24
Well, you can continue to "pretend" you & Issa still have questions, after nine (9) hearings. Tarheel_Dem May 2013 #26
Somebody doesn't want Hillary to run in '16. Common Sense Party May 2013 #11
 

dkf

(37,305 posts)
1. The question is why did State let Jay Carney say things we now know are untrue.
Fri May 10, 2013, 12:42 PM
May 2013

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)
2. I think it's
Fri May 10, 2013, 12:48 PM
May 2013

"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)
3. Less so than why we let the situation deteriorate so badly in the first place.
Fri May 10, 2013, 12:56 PM
May 2013

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)
5. The situation deteriorated so fast because of agency turf wars most likely.
Fri May 10, 2013, 01:05 PM
May 2013

Also, the only scandal here is that Amb. Rice wasn't qualified to give such an opinion.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
6. Maybe
Fri May 10, 2013, 01:06 PM
May 2013

"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)
7. Getting the man out or not letting him be in a vulnerable place on 9/11 would have cost nothing.
Fri May 10, 2013, 01:18 PM
May 2013

We were too complacent.

 

JaneyVee

(19,877 posts)
8. The whistleblowers claim he wanted to go, even with knowledge of lax security.
Fri May 10, 2013, 01:21 PM
May 2013

Also, how would it have cost nothing?

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
9. Well, I suppose
Fri May 10, 2013, 01:21 PM
May 2013

"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.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
16. Isn't it good enough
Fri May 10, 2013, 02:09 PM
May 2013

"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)
19. That's the problem...people are too wrapped up in partisanship to solve anything.
Fri May 10, 2013, 02:20 PM
May 2013

Both sides.

I don't want government protected. I want it to work.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
21. Wait
Fri May 10, 2013, 02:26 PM
May 2013
That's the problem...people are too wrapped up in partisanship to solve anything.

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.

 

dkf

(37,305 posts)
20. Government incompetence only hurts Democrats.
Fri May 10, 2013, 02:22 PM
May 2013

If we feel government is the answer we need one that runs well.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
23. "If we feel government is the answer we need one that runs well."
Fri May 10, 2013, 02:28 PM
May 2013

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)
25. Not when it comes to the military, incompetence proves our empire's reach is too big.
Fri May 10, 2013, 03:36 PM
May 2013

People start questioning why were involved in so many areas of the world.

Tarheel_Dem

(31,207 posts)
4. He has stated that "Obama's being too sensitive about this". I asked how, and got no response.
Fri May 10, 2013, 01:01 PM
May 2013
So I'd say yes, the poster probably is "thinking this needs to be investigated", after nine (9) hearings.
 

dkf

(37,305 posts)
10. By being so defensive and not getting all the info out immediately.
Fri May 10, 2013, 01:25 PM
May 2013

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)
12. Can you cite any example of his being "so defensive", preferably with a link. Are you talking about
Fri May 10, 2013, 01:28 PM
May 2013

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)
13. They are not being forthcoming.
Fri May 10, 2013, 01:58 PM
May 2013

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)
15. I've been listening to commentators that I trust much more than you, and the concensus seems to be..
Fri May 10, 2013, 02:07 PM
May 2013

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)
18. I'm anti war which is why this Libya situation rankles me to no end.
Fri May 10, 2013, 02:18 PM
May 2013

This looks a whole lot like blowback. We never learn.

Tarheel_Dem

(31,207 posts)
22. So you're concerned about what "it looks like". Got it. Oh, and thanks for those links.....
Fri May 10, 2013, 02:26 PM
May 2013

or NOT!


 

dkf

(37,305 posts)
24. And why shouldn't we all expect more?
Fri May 10, 2013, 02:36 PM
May 2013

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)
26. Well, you can continue to "pretend" you & Issa still have questions, after nine (9) hearings.
Fri May 10, 2013, 03:48 PM
May 2013

You're in admirable company.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Presenting the talking po...