ABC: Benghazi talking points went through 12 revisions, scrubbed of terror reference; Update: Video added

posted at 8:01 am on May 10, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

Following on the heels of blockbuster testimony from three whistleblowers regarding the Benghazi terrorist attack, ABC’s Jonathan Karl did some digging into the evolution of the talking points used afterward to paint the attack as a spontaneous demonstration gone wild.  The White House claims that the talking points reflected the CIA’s assessment of the situation, but Karl reports that ABC has found twelve revisions made by the Obama administration from the CIA original, culminating in the whitewashed version Susan Rice parroted on September 16th:

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.

White House emails reviewed by ABC News suggest the edits were made with extensive input from the State Department.  The edits included requests from the State Department that references to the Al Qaeda-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia be deleted as well references to CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack.

That would appear to directly contradict what White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said about the talking points in November.

“Those talking points originated from the intelligence community.  They reflect the IC’s best assessments of what they thought had happened,” Carney told reporters at the White House press briefing on November 28, 2012.  “The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two institutions were changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility’ because ‘consulate’ was inaccurate.”

Stephen Hayes at the Weekly Standard first came up with the e-mails, which Karl links in his piece.  Hayes explained the provenance of the e-mails, and what they mean for the White House explanation:

The White House provided the emails to members of the House and Senate intelligence committees for a limited time and with the stipulation that the documents were available for review only and would not be turned over to the committees. The White House and committee leadership agreed to that arrangement as part of a deal that would keep Republican senators from blocking the confirmation of John Brennan, the president’s choice to run the CIA. If the House report provides an accurate and complete depiction of the emails, it is clear that senior administration officials engaged in a wholesale rewriting of intelligence assessments about Benghazi in order to mislead the public. The Weekly Standard sought comment  from officials at the White House, the State Department, and the CIA, but received none by press time. Within hours of the initial attack on the U.S. facility, the State Department Operations Center sent out two alerts. The first, at 4:05 p.m. (all times are Eastern Daylight Time), indicated that the compound was under attack; the second, at 6:08 p.m., indicated that Ansar al Sharia, an al Qaeda-linked terrorist group operating in Libya, had claimed credit for the attack. According to the House report, these alerts were circulated widely inside the government, including at the highest levels. The fighting in Benghazi continued for another several hours, so top Obama administration officials were told even as the fighting was taking place that U.S. diplomats and intelligence operatives were likely being attacked by al Qaeda-affiliated terrorists. A cable sent the following day, September 12, by the CIA station chief in Libya, reported that eyewitnesses confirmed the participation of Islamic militants and made clear that U.S. facilities in Benghazi had come under terrorist attack. It was this fact, along with several others, that top Obama officials would work so hard to obscure.

The Wall Street Journal argues that these revelations should prompt John Boehner to form a select committee to investigate the Benghazi attack and the White House cover-up:

Congressman Frank Wolf of Virginia has written House Speaker John Boehner, requesting the creation of a bipartisan Select Committee to investigate the Benghazi terror debacle. It is an excellent idea. A Select Committee is the only means available now for the U.S. political system to extricate itself from the labyrinth called Benghazi. …

There are strong reasons for doing so, starting with the murdered U.S. ambassador, Christopher Stevens. Across this country’s history, the murder of an American ambassador, the nation’s representative, has been taken as not merely a tragedy but an attack on U.S. interests that demands an official accounting to the American people.

Nothing about Benghazi, including the Accountability Review Board report, has reflected that U.S. tradition. It has instead represented the more recent impulse in our politics to sweep uncomfortable events out of the news, move forward in the Twitter news cycle, or grind it down into no more than partisan pettiness.

Has partisanship been in play here? Yes, as always in Washington. But the terrorist assault on a U.S. mission abroad deserves not to be quashed by partisanship.

It may be that a bipartisan Select Committee would validate the Obama Administration’s version of events. So be it. And if so, the Administration officials on duty then should not fear it. But after the Hicks testimony, the idea that the American political system should move on from the murder of a U.S. ambassador in a distant land doesn’t sit right.

Perhaps the media would be more inclined to cover that probe than they’ve been to cover the scandal up to now.  Let’s end on a lighter note, as Andrew Klavan makes a guest appearance in Steven Crowder’s weekly video to explain to those whom the media have poorly served just what’s going on here:

Addendum: Per Jim Geraghty, another big takeaway here will be that Jay Carney either knowingly lied or was deceived into making that statement.  If it’s the latter, Carney’s resignation should follow relatively quickly.  If it doesn’t, then we can at least suspect that it’s the former.

Update: Karl presented the story on GMA this morning:

That’s going to leave a mark.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

ABC: Benghazi talking points went through 12 revisions, scrubbed of terror reference

So the Teflon wall was worked hard that day…

Electrongod on May 10, 2013 at 8:02 AM

Did Jay Carney lie, or was he deceived?

Yes.

itsnotaboutme on May 10, 2013 at 8:03 AM

ABC: Benghazi talking points went through 12 revisions, scrubbed of terror reference

“It deserves a vote!”
Okay..[change talking point]
“It deserves a vote!”
Okay..[change talking point]
“It deserves a vote!”
Okay..[change talking point]
“It deserves a vote!”
Okay..[change talking point]
“It deserves a vote!”
Okay..[change talking point]
“It deserves a vote!”

etc…

Being President is hard work..

Electrongod on May 10, 2013 at 8:04 AM

There was no cover up or scandal
-al hunt on morning joe

cmsinaz on May 10, 2013 at 8:05 AM

Were Carney’s lips moving? If so, he was lying.

Dingbat63 on May 10, 2013 at 8:05 AM

It may be that a bipartisan Select Committee would validate the Obama Administration’s version of events. So be it. And if so, the Administration officials on duty then should not fear it. But after the Hicks testimony, the idea that the American political system should move on from the murder of a U.S. ambassador in a distant land doesn’t sit right.

Don’t Fear The Committee…..

from the appropriately named album—-Agents of Fortune.

ted c on May 10, 2013 at 8:06 AM

ABC: Benghazi talking points went through 12 revisions, scrubbed of terror reference

And they didn’t have the time to send in re-enforcements..
But had this time to lie..

Electrongod on May 10, 2013 at 8:06 AM

Don’t blame me

cmsinaz on May 10, 2013 at 8:07 AM

Dick Cheney doesn’t help the gop
-morning joe

cmsinaz on May 10, 2013 at 8:08 AM

ABC: Benghazi talking points went through 12 revisions, scrubbed of terror reference

MurderGate requires no less.

Electrongod on May 10, 2013 at 8:09 AM

I expect the trolls who have been at hard work the past three days to crawl back under the bridge today. It was fun watching you twist into knots making excuses for the liars at the top.

Bensonofben on May 10, 2013 at 8:09 AM

And they didn’t have the time to send in re-enforcements..
But had this time to lie..

Electrongod on May 10, 2013 at 8:06 AM

and they sure had time to do some fancy editing! Damn, as a writer, editing is rigorous (as I’m sure that Ed will attest to) but FFS, TWELVE edits???

ted c on May 10, 2013 at 8:09 AM

ABC’s Jonathan Karl did some digging

ABC: “You’re fired!”

forest on May 10, 2013 at 8:09 AM

Benghazi Jay lied…

workingclass artist on May 10, 2013 at 8:11 AM

Lie of omission – Nothing to see here
Lie of comission and coverup – It was the video

rhombus on May 10, 2013 at 8:12 AM

Al hunt delusional…. this won’t hurt Hillary…. just a little bit of a cover up

cmsinaz on May 10, 2013 at 8:13 AM

Notice the time frame: Twelve revisions in five days, not done by the originator of the report (CIA) as new information came in. New information should have been added as addenda to the original draft, without input from State.

Yet, the LSM sees nothing wrong here, and is largely uninterested except for trying to protect Obama and Hillary.

Liam on May 10, 2013 at 8:13 AM

ABC: Benghazi talking points went through 12 revisions, scrubbed of terror reference

And they didn’t have the time to send in re-enforcements..
But had this time to lie..

Electrongod on May 10, 2013 at 8:06 AM

Priorities…

Evidently it takes the White House & the State Department 12 revisions to change one word

workingclass artist on May 10, 2013 at 8:14 AM

ABC? What the hell are they doing here?

CycloneCDB on May 10, 2013 at 8:14 AM

yawwwwwwwn…….

Has this appeared on Yahoo News / TMZ or E! ????

If not, it doesn’t matter.

PappyD61 on May 10, 2013 at 8:15 AM

Anyone remember the media’s outrageous outrage when ‘the world’s stupidest secret agent’ (aka Valerie Plame) was allegedly outed by Karl Rove?

Deafdog on May 10, 2013 at 8:17 AM

White House emails reviewed by ABC News suggest the edits were made with extensive input from the State Department.

Translation to earth people speak: “Obama is throwing Hillary under the bus to protect himself, and ABC is helping out with that.”

Am I the only one seeing this?

ABC: “You’re fired!”

forest on May 10, 2013 at 8:09 AM

I dunno. Their modis is to completely ignore what they don’t want known, but suddenly they are interested in WH Emails about Benghazi?

Yeah, ok.

dogsoldier on May 10, 2013 at 8:18 AM

They weren’t covering up the attack, they were covering up something bigger going on in Libya.

CycloneCDB on May 10, 2013 at 8:18 AM

Anyone remember the media’s outrageous outrage when ‘the world’s stupidest secret agent’ (aka Valerie Plame) was allegedly outed by Karl Rove?

Deafdog on May 10, 2013 at 8:17 AM

Yeah they interleaved outrage between that and that horrible depression era level unemployment. Twenty four hours a day, every freaking day.

dogsoldier on May 10, 2013 at 8:19 AM

Is the Obama bus going to go bumpity bump over hillary’s badonka donk?

ted c on May 10, 2013 at 8:20 AM

I think what is being covered up here is an arms deal that went bad.

iceman1960 on May 10, 2013 at 8:20 AM

Dick Cheneymorning joe doesn’t help the gop
-morning Dog

cmsinaz on May 10, 2013 at 8:08 AM

There, that reads better.

dogsoldier on May 10, 2013 at 8:20 AM

Lying is the one thing that this administration does well…………

crosshugger on May 10, 2013 at 8:21 AM

White House emails reviewed by ABC News suggest the edits were made with extensive input from the State Department.

Translation to earth people speak: “Obama is throwing Hillary under the bus to protect himself, and ABC is helping out with that.”

Am I the only one seeing this?

ABC: “You’re fired!”

forest on May 10, 2013 at 8:09 AM

I dunno. Their modis is to completely ignore what they don’t want known, but suddenly they are interested in WH Emails about Benghazi?

Yeah, ok.

dogsoldier on May 10, 2013 at 8:18 AM

Well she won’t go down alone…

Bill won’t allow that…sullies his legacy or something.

workingclass artist on May 10, 2013 at 8:22 AM

This scandal screams out for a Select Investigative committee in the House with full authority and subpoena power. Republican members should demand Speaker Boehner to form a committee. If not, they need to dump him as Speaker. It’s long past time for that anyway!

MPan on May 10, 2013 at 8:22 AM

Is hillary in any ways taaaahhhrd???

ted c on May 10, 2013 at 8:23 AM

ABC: Benghazi talking points went through 12 revisions, scrubbed of terror reference

There’s a viral twitter going around, calling low information media Obama’s Scandal Condom. As many condoms do, looks like Obama’s has sprung a leak.

MNHawk on May 10, 2013 at 8:24 AM

ABC’s Jonathan Karl did some digging

Off to Sharyl Attkisson Camp you go..

hillsoftx on May 10, 2013 at 8:24 AM

Lying is the one only thing that this administration does well…………

crosshugger on May 10, 2013 at 8:21 AM

Edited for accuracy.

bigmacdaddy on May 10, 2013 at 8:24 AM

ABC has found twelve revisions made by the Obama administration from the CIA original, culminating in the whitewashed version Susan Rice parroted on September 16th:

Whitewashed? Hardly.

The edits included requests from the State Department that references to the Al Qaeda-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia be deleted as well references to CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack.

At what point does editing become outright lies? Removing references to Ansar al-Sharia is not a stylistic change as Carney claimed- it is trying to deceive the public. Heads should roll including Carney and Susan Rice.

Happy Nomad on May 10, 2013 at 8:25 AM

Is hillary in any ways taaaahhhrd???

ted c on May 10, 2013 at 8:23 AM

Just look at her on the main page…
Yes..
She is a turd…

Oh wait…

Electrongod on May 10, 2013 at 8:25 AM

Cummings defending Hillary natch….clapper indicated it was video and Susan rice was just following orders……too much politicization here….don’t you blame Hillary now…. we need more money

cmsinaz on May 10, 2013 at 8:26 AM

But what about that crease in Obama’s pants?

Electrongod on May 10, 2013 at 8:26 AM

edit 1
stonewall
edit 2
delay
edit 3
have jay lie about it
edit 4
find a patsy
edit 5
blame the DoD’s lack of prep
edit 6
did you see that video??? yeah yeah—use that!!!

ted c on May 10, 2013 at 8:27 AM

Michael Crowley actually questioning why dear leader clung to the video for so long

cmsinaz on May 10, 2013 at 8:27 AM

. we need more money

cmsinaz on May 10, 2013 at 8:26 AM

Money ain’t for nothin’…

Electrongod on May 10, 2013 at 8:28 AM

Okay. Next step is identifying exactly who collaborated on the revisions. And I’m using collaborated in its original, pejorative sense. After we line up the participants, then we can start asking who was pulling their strings.

This is a phucking disgrace.

BuckeyeSam on May 10, 2013 at 8:28 AM

Crowley blaming petraeus for removing the terror reference not state

cmsinaz on May 10, 2013 at 8:28 AM

Lies, corruption, incompetence, cover-ups, murders of Americans by AQ terrorists . . . .

Just another day in the Obama administration. Move along folks, nothing to see here. Certainly nothing worth reporting.

AZCoyote on May 10, 2013 at 8:29 AM

jay, valerie, david and the gang went through the edits like they goes through chickens up there…..

cluck…cluck, right jay????

ted c on May 10, 2013 at 8:29 AM

EG
And the chicks for free?

cmsinaz on May 10, 2013 at 8:30 AM

I think what is being covered up here is an arms deal that went bad.

iceman1960 on May 10, 2013 at 8:20 AM

Doesn’t matter. The administration made some noise this week that perhaps they aren’t telling us the whole truth in the name of national security or something. It was a hail mary pass by an administration see that the chickens are coming home to roost.

They are getting as desperate as Clinton was when he tried to assert that he didn’t have to testify to Congress because as Commander-in-Chief he was covered by the Soldiers and Sailors Relief Act provisions that protect soldiers from being called from duty to testify in court trials.

Happy Nomad on May 10, 2013 at 8:31 AM

Awwwright! The ice is broken at ABC. And CBS already has Sharyl on its back.

Some might call that progress, meager though it is.

petefrt on May 10, 2013 at 8:32 AM

Michael steele finally says it…..if this occurred under a gop admin the lsm would be all over this….Cummings silence

cmsinaz on May 10, 2013 at 8:32 AM

EG
And the chicks for free?

cmsinaz on May 10, 2013 at 8:30 AM

:)

Already finished the song in my mind..

Oh wait…

Electrongod on May 10, 2013 at 8:33 AM

about:reader?url=http%3A%2F%2Fm.weeklystandard.com%2Farticles%2Fbenghazi-scandal-grows_722032.html&readingList=0&tabId=10

Petreas was surprised, too.

pambi on May 10, 2013 at 8:34 AM

Not a good sign for the regime when even ABC is getting onboard with exposing the coverup.

Doughboy on May 10, 2013 at 8:34 AM

Cummings insuating that the whistleblowers changed their testimony or were forced to change it

Wtf?

cmsinaz on May 10, 2013 at 8:35 AM

Twelve changes is not a mere “unclear on what happened.” It’s a deliberate attempt at deceivement.

rbj on May 10, 2013 at 8:36 AM

Michael steele finally says it…..if this occurred under a gop admin the lsm would be all over this….Cummings silence

cmsinaz on May 10, 2013 at 8:32 AM

No, if this happened under a GOP administration, that President would already have been forced to resign.

Doughboy on May 10, 2013 at 8:36 AM

Michael Crowley actually questioning why dear leader clung to the video for so long

cmsinaz on May 10, 2013 at 8:27 AM

Well, that was still his story over two weeks later at the opening session of the UN. One does have to wonder why the rat-eared coward was still on that story when it is clear that they knew the truth from the beginning. Before Hillary and the rat-eared coward spoke in the Rose Garden on 9/12/12. Before Susan Rice lied her ass off on five Sunday talk shows. Before the American taxpayer spent $100K on that ad campaign mollifying Muslim anger over that video. Before the UN speech.

Then Hillary stalled any sort of real testimony to Congress until she was out of office at which point the story changed to What difference does it make if it were a video or a spontaneous attack. I’m not sure they’ve ever admitted that this was a coordinated attack by adherents of the religion of peace.

Happy Nomad on May 10, 2013 at 8:36 AM

Michael steele finally says it…..if this occurred under a gop admin the lsm would be all over this….Cummings silence

cmsinaz on May 10, 2013 at 8:32 AM

Excellent article here in case you missed it yesterday speaking to your point.

hillsoftx on May 10, 2013 at 8:37 AM

The Wall Street Journal argues that these revelations should prompt John Boehner to form a select committee to investigate the Benghazi attack and the White House cover-up

…Bonehead will sternly call for Dems and Pubes… to all play a bi-partisan round of golf… with JugEars…

KOOLAID2 on May 10, 2013 at 8:37 AM

Oh, in case that linky doesn’t work …

http://m.weeklystandard.com/articles/benghazi-scandal-grows_722032.html

pambi on May 10, 2013 at 8:39 AM

Good point doughboy

cmsinaz on May 10, 2013 at 8:39 AM

Cummings insuating that the whistleblowers changed their testimony or were forced to change it

cmsinaz on May 10, 2013 at 8:35 AM

To what end? These people are senior officials who have been intimidated by the administration to keep quiet. The character assassination tactic is all too predictable.

Happy Nomad on May 10, 2013 at 8:40 AM

ABC and CBS have seen the light.

NBC- not so much. Final nail in the coffin for them. I guess it is ridiculous to label them a news outfit now. Now we should be compare their ratings and programming to Comedy Central and The Cartonn Network from now on. Apples to apples ya know.

Bensonofben on May 10, 2013 at 8:41 AM

Is hillary in any ways taaaahhhrd???

ted c on May 10, 2013 at 8:23 AM

Sick and taaaahhhrd.

forest on May 10, 2013 at 8:42 AM

Congressman Frank Wolf of Virginia has written House Speaker John Boehner, requesting the creation of a bipartisan Select Committee to investigate the Benghazi terror debacle. It is an excellent idea.

Yah that’s the ticket. A bipartisan committee chaired by a weeping coward with half of its members being lickspittle demorat apparatchiks who would rather immolate themselves on a pile of burning tires than say one bad word about the Dog Eating Pus Bag.

When should that circus begin, the day after never?

Bishop on May 10, 2013 at 8:44 AM

Good linky hillsoftx

cmsinaz on May 10, 2013 at 8:45 AM

Indeed HN. Cummings sounded desperate saying it….don’t really think joe took the bait

cmsinaz on May 10, 2013 at 8:46 AM

I’m I missing something, or is this darn close to a smoking gun?

WannabeAnglican on May 10, 2013 at 8:47 AM

Ben, Gregory will have to bring it on mtp

cmsinaz on May 10, 2013 at 8:47 AM

ABC: Benghazi talking points went through a breathtaking 12 revisions, scrubbed of terror reference

Updated title.

BigGator5 on May 10, 2013 at 8:47 AM

Perhaps the media would be more inclined to cover that probe than they’ve been to cover the scandal up to now.

Are you really this naive, Ed?

Jeez …

ShainS on May 10, 2013 at 8:47 AM

Let’s not forget Steve Kroft’s interview the day after with Obama and how they did not air his waffling answer on if it was a terrorist attack until after the election.

can_con on May 10, 2013 at 8:48 AM

But, but, but, but Jay Carney said those edits were all “stylistic”!! I guess if “stylistic” means we’re no good effing liars then I would agree!

Southgirl on May 10, 2013 at 8:50 AM

If the GOP Elite would stop kissing tail and grandstanding, and show some tes…err…intestinal fortitude, they could bust this anti-American Administration wide open.

But…they won’t.

kingsjester on May 10, 2013 at 8:50 AM

White House emails reviewed by ABC News suggest the edits were made with extensive input from the State Department.

Translation to earth people speak: “Obama is throwing Hillary under the bus to protect himself, and ABC is helping out with that.”

dogsoldier on May 10, 2013 at 8:18 AM

Very interesting. You may be on to something here, dog.

petefrt on May 10, 2013 at 8:50 AM

What I find amazing is that this is a news story more worthy of a book & movie than Wtaergate every was.
And yet, where’s the ‘mainstream objective journalists’ on this?
A POTUS scandal of epic proportions and nothing but crickets from the mainstream media.
What an incredible travesty that is.

Badger40 on May 10, 2013 at 8:52 AM

Politico hasn’t said a peep yet natch

cmsinaz on May 10, 2013 at 8:52 AM

People, Please!

These were just “stylistic changes”

ToddPA on May 10, 2013 at 8:52 AM

If the GOP Elite would stop kissing tail and grandstanding, and show some tes…err…intestinal fortitude, they could bust this anti-American Administration wide open.

But…they won’t.

kingsjester on May 10, 2013 at 8:50 AM

Same GOP that should have got rid of Bill right after they impeached him.
The Dems have no honor & none of them will ever resign.
They must be purged like they are trying to do to us.
One should not suffer evil like this.

Badger40 on May 10, 2013 at 8:54 AM

RAMMING SPEED!

Throat Wobbler Mangrove on May 10, 2013 at 8:55 AM

Let’s see how the WH briefing goes today with Press Liar Carney now that we have a solid MSM piece…

hillsoftx on May 10, 2013 at 8:55 AM

I hope Obama does throw Hillary under the bus. The stupid electorate assured us of 4 more years of this dolt, so the least O could do is snuff out Hillary’s bid.

It would be fun to see the MSM try to push Gaffomatic Biden across the 2016 finish line.

Bensonofben on May 10, 2013 at 8:55 AM

Politico hasn’t said a peep yet natch

cmsinaz on May 10, 2013 at 8:52 AM

Rich Lowery did a nice piece for them yesterday.

hillsoftx on May 10, 2013 at 8:57 AM

I believe this was already posted but everything is making me angry today…

RNC Benghazi Attack Ad That Never Ran

“A source familiar with the creation of the ad says the RNC leadership approved the ad but it was scrapped at the last minute because of objections from the Romney campaign, which was concerned the ad would distract from Romney’s efforts to focus on the economy.”

Grrr…

Fallon on May 10, 2013 at 8:58 AM

Still nothing on Yahoo but they did manage to rewrite the piece on the latest jobs report to move that to the top. Gonna be some hard working leftist editors today trying to find another kidnapping victim or a carnival cruise on fire.

Bensonofben on May 10, 2013 at 8:59 AM

The government is in the hands of the University of Chicago. Obama lectured tree, Valarie Jarret has strong ties there, Bill Ayers pontificates from there, Goolsby teaches there and the probable sign off person has roots there….David Axelrod. That university is home to your dictatorial government and will until it is cleaned up. This is only the tip of the iceberg.

Pardonme on May 10, 2013 at 8:59 AM

People, Please!

These were just “stylistic changes”

ToddPA on May 10, 2013 at 8:52 AM

It will be interesting to see if some reporter asks Carney what is stylistic about “violent terror attack” becoming “spontaneous protest over a YouTube video.”

Happy Nomad on May 10, 2013 at 9:00 AM

Very interesting. You may be on to something here, dog.

petefrt on May 10, 2013 at 8:50 AM

It just struck me that ABC ( that arch conservative network! ) suddenly decided to go all journalistic, from being complete Obama supporters/shills/PR firm?

Why?

“Extensive input from the state department”

They are saying the whitehouse didn’t make the changes. Hillary made them.

Which btw is horse manure. I do not like Hillary, but this cover up was perpetrated by Obama and Jarrett, to protect Obama.

Hillary won’t go down alone. I think Skippy just crossed a line. Hillary and Bill, if they are as shrewd as everyone says, will get out ahead of Zero and THROW HIM UNDER THE BUS.

In any case her 2016 ambitions are in the waste bin.

dogsoldier on May 10, 2013 at 9:02 AM

Yes he did hillsoftx

But crickets chirping there about Karl’s piece

cmsinaz on May 10, 2013 at 9:03 AM

I’m a big douchebag.

-morningjoe

Mimzey on May 10, 2013 at 9:04 AM

If there was a video of Obama and Clinton conspiring to let the four Americans die, they still would not be held accountable. The media would claim that video was manufactured evidence and the American people would be stupid enough to believe it.

cajunpatriot on May 10, 2013 at 9:09 AM

They weren’t covering up the attack, they were covering up something bigger going on in Libya.

CycloneCDB on May 10, 2013 at 8:18 AM

And in various other parts of the Middle East.

Cleombrotus on May 10, 2013 at 9:09 AM

The White House and committee leadership agreed to that arrangement as part of a deal that would keep Republican senators from blocking the confirmation of John Brennan, the president’s choice to run the CIA

Devoid.
Of.
Principles.

Establishment Repubs are the problem.

socalcon on May 10, 2013 at 9:09 AM

I’m I missing something, or is this darn close to a smoking gun?

WannabeAnglican on May 10, 2013 at 8:47 AM

Guns are bad so we don’t use that term any longer, therefore there can be no smoking gun.

Case closed. Hey! Who got kicked off Idol last night????

Bishop on May 10, 2013 at 9:09 AM

Low information voters will remain ignorant. The effect on the 2014 elections will be 0.

SunSword on May 10, 2013 at 9:12 AM

this cover up was perpetrated by Obama and Jarrett, to protect Obama.
dogsoldier on May 10, 2013 at 9:02 AM

That’s my bet too. The video lie was dreamed up in the WH, probably by Axelrod/Jarrett to protect Obama. Hillary needed protection too, so she went along with it.
What was the source of these emails? ABC acknowledges that some had been published by Stephen Hayes. But are they being leaked? By whom?

petefrt on May 10, 2013 at 9:13 AM

I hope Obama does throw Hillary under the bus. The stupid electorate assured us of 4 more years of this dolt, so the least O could do is snuff out Hillary’s bid.

It would be fun to see the MSM try to push Gaffomatic Biden across the 2016 finish line.

Bensonofben on May 10, 2013 at 8:55 AM

I’d like to see it for different reasons. I think Hillary is a) smarter than O, b) tougher than O, c) more powerful than O (in the “knows who has skeletons in their closet” sense). If it comes down to a snarling cat fight between the two, my money’s on Hillary.

However, back to the original story…I’ve given this some thought, and it’s nice that ABC and CBS are both doing a little digging here, but I’ll believe that we’ve actually made some real traction when I see the siren on Drudge. Still haven’t seen that.

Chris of Rights on May 10, 2013 at 9:14 AM

Gotcha cmsinaz.

hillsoftx on May 10, 2013 at 9:14 AM

Michael steele finally says it…..if this occurred under a gop admin the lsm would be all over this

cmsinaz on May 10, 2013 at 8:32 AM

Steele’s book sales must be in the toilet. He’s desperately seeking relevance.

socalcon on May 10, 2013 at 9:15 AM

I think what is being covered up here is an arms deal that went bad.

iceman1960 on May 10, 2013 at 8:20 AM

I don’t think the arms deal went bad. I think the coverup of the arms deal went bad.

oldroy on May 10, 2013 at 9:16 AM

……. Before the American taxpayer spent $100K on that ad campaign mollifying Muslim anger over that video. Before the UN speech.

Happy Nomad on May 10, 2013 at 8:36 AM

I’m surprised that this isn’t getting more play since both Hill and Zero made it together insisting it was the video and “not us”. Couldn’t be more obvious that they were in cahoots covering up.

tru2tx on May 10, 2013 at 9:21 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4