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
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
What ABC Left Out Of Its Report On Benghazi Talking Points
What ABC Left Out Of Its Report On Benghazi Talking Points
By Ben Armbruster
<...>
The story soon set reporters and Twitter alight. “Scrubbing the truth from Benghazi,” a National Journal headline read. Even the BBC speculated that “heads will roll.”
But absent in ABC’s report is the key point that Obama and various members of his administration referred to the Benghazi assault as a terror attack on numerous occasions shortly after the incident (thereby negating the need to “scrub” any references in the talking points) and that then-CIA Director David Petraeus said the terrorist references were taken out to, as the New York Times reported, “avoid tipping off the groups” that may have been involved.
Moreover, an update the ABC report undermines the notion that Nuland’s motives were campaign related or political:
In other words, ABC’s “exclusive” reveals a turf battle, not some cover-up. As it turns out, the story is more about how talking points are generated in the interagency process, a point the Hill newspaper took notice of in its headline reporting on ABC’s story:
Indeed, as Media Matters Jeremy Holden noted, “ABC is left with a major exclusive dissecting the distinction between input and editing.”
http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/05/10/1994781/abc-benghazi-editing/
By Ben Armbruster
<...>
The story soon set reporters and Twitter alight. “Scrubbing the truth from Benghazi,” a National Journal headline read. Even the BBC speculated that “heads will roll.”
But absent in ABC’s report is the key point that Obama and various members of his administration referred to the Benghazi assault as a terror attack on numerous occasions shortly after the incident (thereby negating the need to “scrub” any references in the talking points) and that then-CIA Director David Petraeus said the terrorist references were taken out to, as the New York Times reported, “avoid tipping off the groups” that may have been involved.
Moreover, an update the ABC report undermines the notion that Nuland’s motives were campaign related or political:
A source familiar with the White House emails on the Benghazi talking point revisions say that State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland was raising two concerns about the CIA’s first version of talking points, which were going to be sent to Congress: 1) The talking points went further than what she was allowed to say about the attack during her state department briefings; and, 2) she believed the CIA was attempting to exonerate itself at the State Department’s expense by suggesting CIA warnings about the security situation were ignored.
In other words, ABC’s “exclusive” reveals a turf battle, not some cover-up. As it turns out, the story is more about how talking points are generated in the interagency process, a point the Hill newspaper took notice of in its headline reporting on ABC’s story:
Indeed, as Media Matters Jeremy Holden noted, “ABC is left with a major exclusive dissecting the distinction between input and editing.”
http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/05/10/1994781/abc-benghazi-editing/
Editgate!
Presenting the talking point revisions that GOPers hope will destroy Hillary (spoiler: they won't)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022825190
7 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
K & R 
