So, who changed the Benghazi talking points?

posted at 12:41 pm on May 10, 2013 by Allahpundit

Stephen Hayes follows up on ABC’s scoop this morning by introducing some names. We already knew that State Department mouthpiece Victoria Nuland was unhappy with the passage in the talking points emphasizing that the CIA had warned the administration before about jihadi activity in and around Benghazi. But Nuland, per ABC’s update, wasn’t even in the meeting where the talking points were eventually changed. Who was? Hayes claims he knows.

Coming soon to a congressional subpoena near you:

[O]ne previously opaque aspect of the Obama administration’s efforts is becoming somewhat clearer. An email sent to Susan Rice following a key White House meeting where officials coordinated their public story lays out what happened in that meeting and offers more clues about who might have rewritten the talking points…

Nuland wrote that the changes did not “resolve all my issues or those of my building leadership.” She did not specify whom she meant by State Department “building leadership.” Ben Rhodes, a top Obama foreign policy and national security adviser, responded to the group, explaining that Nuland had raised valid concerns and advising that the issues would be resolved at a meeting of the National Security Council’s Deputies Committee the following morning. The Deputies Committee consists of high-ranking officials at the agencies with responsibility for national security​—​including State, Defense, and the CIA​—​as well as senior White House national security staffers…

According to the email, several officials in the meeting shared the concern of Nuland, who was not part of the deliberations, that the CIA’s talking points might lead to criticism that the State Department had ignored the CIA’s warning about an attack. Mike Morell, deputy director of the CIA, agreed to work with Jake Sullivan and Rhodes to edit the talking points. At the time, Sullivan was deputy chief of staff to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the State Department’s director of policy planning; he is now the top national security adviser to Vice President Joe Biden. Denis McDonough, then a top national security adviser to Obama and now his chief of staff, deferred on Rhodes’s behalf to Sullivan…

The sender of the email spoke with Sullivan after the meeting, reminding him that Rice would be doing the Sunday morning shows and needed to receive the final talking points. Sullivan committed to making sure Rice was updated before the Sunday shows.

Petraeus was, according to Hayes, shocked to see references to “al Qaeda, Ansar al Sharia, jihadists, Islamic extremists” etc. mysteriously gone from the rewritten talking points. Which we already knew, kinda sorta, based on what Peter King revealed about Petraeus’s closed-doors testimony to the House Intelligence Committee last November. At the same hearing, though, DNI James Clapper and acting CIA director Mike Morell — who, per Hayes, agreed to work with Sullivan and Rhodes to rewrite the talking points — told the House that they … didn’t know how the talking points got changed. Really? Morell couldn’t figure it out, huh? A senior administration official also told Hayes that Sullivan was blameless, but I think Sullivan will end up having to tell Issa’s committee that himself. If he was deputy chief of staff at State, that means he worked directly under longtime Clinton apparatchik Cheryl Mills, who, allegedly told Greg Hicks not to talk to GOP congressmen about Benghazi unless a State lawyer/minder/chaperone was present. Let’s hear from him, and let’s hear from Rhodes too. I’m eager to know why a top Obama advisor was eager to tweak the CIA’s version of talking points to remove terrorism references two months out from an election.

Via the Standard, here’s NBC reporter Lisa Myers noting that various Democrats spent the day yesterday calling her to challenge Hicks’s testimony, specifically his claim that he was demoted. Another Democrat, Elijah Cummings, told MSNBC that Hicks somehow “changed his story” about whether Cheryl Mills had pressured him. Should be easy for the media to get to the bottom of this and find out who’s lying. How about it?

Update: Good catch by Ron Fournier:

Throw Hillary under the bus? In a statement to ABC, Carney notably insulates the West Wing and not the State Department by saying “the only edits made by anyone here at the White House were stylistic and nonsubstantive.”

Your thoughts, Mr. Sullivan?


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

Isn’t Ben Rhodes the one whose brother is president of CBS News?

rockmom on May 10, 2013 at 12:43 PM

Would it be Jarrett to cya bho/hill’s rears?
L

letget on May 10, 2013 at 12:44 PM

GWB

Schadenfreude on May 10, 2013 at 12:44 PM

More popcorn please. The snakes in the pit are beginning to squirm.

DanMan on May 10, 2013 at 12:45 PM

Throw them all under the biggest bus you can find

txdoc on May 10, 2013 at 12:46 PM

Dear Liar’s regime was quick to exploit the Newtown shooting to attempt to restrict our Second Amendment rights, and was quick to exploit the Benghazi assault to begin an attack on our First Amendment rights.

rbj on May 10, 2013 at 12:47 PM

So … at the end of day … what really happens to Killary?

The vast right wing conspiracy already knows that she is an incompetent idiot/liar/snake? So what?

LetsBfrank on May 10, 2013 at 12:48 PM

If we finally do get to the point where this scandal is Team Obama vs. Team Clinton, as far as who gets tossed under the bus for changing the talking points, it’s going to be fun to see which side the big media chooses to come down on (i.e. — Do they preserve Obama’s image as some sort of demigod at the risk of killing the Hillary ’16 campaign? Or do they take down the White House to make Hillary an innocent victim and preserve her viability three years from now?)

jon1979 on May 10, 2013 at 12:48 PM

Would it be Jarrett to cya bho/hill’s rears?
L

letget on May 10, 2013 at 12:44 PM

Most likely.

UltimateBob on May 10, 2013 at 12:49 PM

Still inside the beltway, this story is.

NOTHINGburger.

75 headlines in banner at Yahoo…..

….NO MENTION OF BENwhatitsname.

PappyD61 on May 10, 2013 at 12:49 PM

i did,

What difference does it make?

phatfawzi on May 10, 2013 at 12:52 PM

There is a two-fold problem with Communism, and with the bureaucracy that follows:

1. When things go wrong, it’s hard to pinpoint who is responsible.

2. If who is responsible is pinpointed, it is never possible for the Communist elite to be implicated [even if it is obvious that the responsible apparatchik will only act, when told to, from above].

OhEssYouCowboys on May 10, 2013 at 12:52 PM

If we finally do get to the point where this scandal is Team Obama vs. Team Clinton, as far as who gets tossed under the bus for changing the talking points, it’s going to be fun to see which side the big media chooses to come down on (i.e. — jon1979 on May 10, 2013 at 12:48 PM

Yep. Valerie-Axelrod tag teaming against Hillary-Cheryl.

a capella on May 10, 2013 at 12:53 PM

Barry doesn’t need Hillary! any longer.

POPCORN TIME!

GarandFan on May 10, 2013 at 12:53 PM

What difference does it make?

Washington Nearsider on May 10, 2013 at 12:53 PM

Leave me or I’ll be just like the others you will meet
They won’t act as kindly if they see you on the street
And don’t you scream or make a shout
It’s nothing you can do about
It was there where you came out
It’s a special lack of grace
I can see it in your face

I can see by what you carry that you come from Barrytown

Christien on May 10, 2013 at 12:53 PM

it’s going to be fun to see which side the big media chooses to come down on (i.e. — j

on1979 on May 10, 2013 at 12:48 PM

No. No contest here. They come down on Clinton’s side. Obama’s a lame duck, and can’t run again. By protecting Hillary, they ensure she wins in 2016.

Washington Nearsider on May 10, 2013 at 12:54 PM

Is it a witch hunt if there are real witches in the WH and State Department? or in the State Run Media who ignored all this..?

d1carter on May 10, 2013 at 12:54 PM

I guess the previous post wound up in the Homeland Security web filters.

75 “news” stories that Yahoo is running in it’s banner……

……NOT ONE on Benghazi.

Conservatives need to find a way to take back the media.

PappyD61 on May 10, 2013 at 12:54 PM

Ben Rhodes, a top Obama foreign policy and national security adviser

Ben Rhodes…wrote Obama’s Cairo speech…and was/is key player in Obama-Powers Mideast Policy development…and…sits on the National Security Council, with zero foreign policy, intel or national security experience…has a brother Dave, who is president of CBS News…holds a Masters degree in Fiction Writing [seriously...no joke...] from New York University…and worships Obama…Obama’s voice is my voice, my voice is Obama’s voice…creepy.

That Ben Rhodes?

coldwarrior on May 10, 2013 at 12:54 PM

I think the low level government employees are at it again…

d1carter on May 10, 2013 at 12:55 PM

Thank you Secretary Napolitano. :-)

PappyD61 on May 10, 2013 at 12:55 PM

NBC reporter Lisa Myers noting that various Democrats spent the day yesterday calling her to challenge Hicks’s testimony,

We know that journalists, particularly at NBC, get direct orders from the Democrats, but why is Myers saying that out loud now? Is she jumping into a lifeboat here?

forest on May 10, 2013 at 12:55 PM

Ben Rhodes brother runs CBA News…What a Kwinky Dink!

OT- Criminal investigation opened in West, Texas Fertilizer Plant explosion…Texas Rangers on the case – WBAP

workingclass artist on May 10, 2013 at 12:55 PM

Ben Rhodes..? hmmmm

d1carter on May 10, 2013 at 12:55 PM

Where is HAL?

Electrongod on May 10, 2013 at 12:56 PM

According to the email, several officials in the meeting shared the concern of Nuland, who was not part of the deliberations, that the CIA’s talking points might lead to criticism that the State Department had ignored the CIA’s warning about an attack.

NO SHIT! That is what they DID! State didn’t want bad light on Hillary since she wants to be president. This would crush those ambitions.

Hillary also ignored the warnings of her own RSO on the ground in Libya, as well as Ambassador Stevens when he said that the situation on the ground in Libya was deteriorating, and he needed more security.

And as this email exchange shows, Hillary’s fingerprints are all over this BS.

My question is, why would the CIA agree to this change? It makes them look like they aren’t independent of State, and Hillary is calling the shots.

Patriot Vet on May 10, 2013 at 12:56 PM

Is that the same CBS that has been having some discussions about not renewing Sharyl Attkisson’s contract…you mean that CBS?

d1carter on May 10, 2013 at 12:56 PM

Would we be seeing direct cooperation from the State Run Media to suppress information that would be harmful to the Messiah..? Nah.

d1carter on May 10, 2013 at 12:58 PM

Ben Rhodes brother runs CBA News…What a Kwinky Dink!

Ben Rhodes’ brother runs CBS News.

workingclass artist on May 10, 2013 at 12:59 PM

We know that journalists, particularly at NBC, get direct orders from the Democrats, but why is Myers saying that out loud now? Is she jumping into a lifeboat here?

forest on May 10, 2013 at 12:55 PM

No. No lifeboat. One won’t be needed. It’s kind of casual the way she says. There’s no shock, no outrage. Imagine if Scooter Libby had called her to report one single true thing about Wilson and Plame.

It’s in their DNA and total life experience. To them it is ethical and moral to protect, defend and promote the left.

oldroy on May 10, 2013 at 12:59 PM

So … at the end of day … what really happens to Killary?

The vast right wing conspiracy already knows that she is an incompetent idiot/liar/snake? So what?

LetsBfrank on May 10, 2013 at 12:48 PM

Yes the VRWC knows that but incompetent idiot/liar/snake are the very traits Libtards look for in a presidential candidate.

Buttercup on May 10, 2013 at 1:01 PM

In a statement to ABC, Carney notably insulates the West Wing and not the State Department by saying “the only edits made by anyone here at the White House were stylistic and nonsubstantive.”

I guess we see where Carney’s tossing his discredited hat. Pretty soon, he’s going to have his statement restricted to one broom closet at the White House.

“No one sitting, at the time, in the utility closet on the second floor, on the left, next to the mops and buckets, had anything whatsoever to do with the doctoring that was obviously done to the CIA’s talking points.”

This quote provided, in advance. Call it a “talking point” for Mr. Carney.

IndieDogg on May 10, 2013 at 1:02 PM

The better questions are who floated the idea that the video was responsible for the attacks, how was that narrative developed and signed off on it.

The vast preponderance of the evidence attributed the attack to Islamic terrorists, specifically Ansar al-Sharia, even as the attack was on-going. The 9/12 memo from Beth Jones, elint at the time of the assault, the people on the ground, the Libyan president and the CIA (initial draft of talking points) all pointed in one direction.

No evidence that I’m aware of pointed to the video as being important.

So what we’re left with is the administration developing a narrative fingering Nakula Nakula, a private American citizen, for his execrable video, demonizing him, scapegoating him and parading him before the world as if his video was the precipitating event.

The administration pushed this narrative hard for two weeks to the virtual exclusion of any alternative that included a prominent role of Islamic terrorists.

And then, they sentenced Nakula Nakula to a year in jail for a minor probation violation.

There’s a chill in such behavior, and pure gold in them thar questions.

BLOC on May 10, 2013 at 1:03 PM

One thing that was very obvious in Wednesday’s hearing was that the witnesses had no political axe to grind, so the “political witch hunt” just isn’t believable. I love it that the hearing left so many questions to be answered, because it certainly is not “case closed”. It is very possible that it will come down to Obama vs. Hillary with Democrats having to decide allegiance to one or the other. Obama, of course, would win.

lea on May 10, 2013 at 1:03 PM

Oh My….

“Mark Mardell, the BBC’s North American editor, issued a mea culpa of sorts today after Jonathan Karl at ABC News dropped his bombshell that proves beyond any doubt that the Obama Administration lied about its involvement in editing the CIA’s talking points surrounding the September 11 attack on our consulate in Libya.

In a piece titled, “After Benghazi revelations, heads will roll,” Mardell writes, “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.” He adds, “It seemed to me a partisan attack based on very little.”

That all changed with today’s revelations. Mardell now believes:

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.”

There’s little doubt in my mind that this will haunt Hillary Clinton if she decides to run for president, unless she executes some pretty fancy footwork.

State department spokesperson Victoria Nuland is directly implicated, and the fingerprints of senior White House aides Ben Rhodes and Jay Carney are there as well.

If the rest of the mainstream media shows the integrity Mr. Mardell just did, the Obama Administration is about to finally be held accountable for an unforgivable coverup that started back in September and has lasted straight through to today…” – John Nolte

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/05/10/BBC-issues-Mea-Culpa-Benghazi-Libya-Matters

workingclass artist on May 10, 2013 at 1:04 PM

So, who changed the Benghazi talking points?

The Easter Bunny?? (figured I’d save Libfree the time to post)

ToddPA on May 10, 2013 at 1:05 PM

Barry doesn’t need Hillary! any longer.

POPCORN TIME!

GarandFan on May 10, 2013 at 12:53 PM

Smell the Panic…

workingclass artist on May 10, 2013 at 1:05 PM

The fact we haven’t been told points to the answer. Why are we pretending not to understand what happened here?

echosyst on May 10, 2013 at 1:06 PM

It was a ‘collective’ effort.

Galt2009 on May 10, 2013 at 1:06 PM

Isn’t Ben Rhodes the one whose brother is president of CBS News?

rockmom on May 10, 2013 at 12:43 PM

Yes. And according to Beck, he majored in fiction writing and was the speech writer for Obama. Makes sense to me.

katy on May 10, 2013 at 1:07 PM

What did he know…..and when did he know it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDPQHKmU0P8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcJAJCxOjaw

PappyD61 on May 10, 2013 at 1:07 PM

If this had been Bush……Pelosi would have already had impeachment articles sent over to the Senate.

….but NOTHING from Boehner.

PappyD61 on May 10, 2013 at 1:08 PM

Dems should get their wikileaks pals on the case.

*snort*

Christien on May 10, 2013 at 1:09 PM

The Easter Bunny?? (figured I’d save Libfree the time to post)

ToddPA on May 10, 2013 at 1:05 PM

She over at the Gosnell post claiming that it doesn’t matter that he murdered minority babies because he is an outlier of some kind. She’ll be by here after her volunteer janitorial hours at the Planned Parenthood across the street from her school.

oldroy on May 10, 2013 at 1:09 PM

So, who gave the order to Stand Down?

Buttercup on May 10, 2013 at 1:09 PM

It seems as though Ben Rhodes is the reason for JugEars’ stance on the issues. I wonder if the president has ever taken his own stance on anything?

Two years ago, when protesters thronged Tahrir Square in Cairo, Mr. Rhodes urged Mr. Obama to withdraw three decades of American support for President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt. A few months later, Mr. Rhodes was among those agitating for the president to back a NATO military intervention in Libya to head off a slaughter by Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi.

“The person behind the scenes who played the largest role in the opening to Burma and the engagement with Aung San Suu Kyi was Ben Rhodes,” said Kurt M. Campbell, a former assistant secretary of state who led the negotiations with the Myanmar government.

And this guy has only been in Washington for 10 years…

Benjamin Rhodes, who worked briefly for Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani’s re-election campaign in 1997, was living a writer’s life in Queens on Sept. 11, 2001, when he watched from the Brooklyn waterfront as the World Trade Center towers collapsed. The trauma of that experience, he said, led him to move to Washington in 2002.

This is the best the president can do for advisors…

Patriot Vet on May 10, 2013 at 1:10 PM

“Tommy Vitor (Former Nat’l Security advisor to Obama) is tweeting that Republicans forced the White House to change the talking points…Is this an admission that the White House Lied? Holy Smokes!” – Rush Limbaugh

workingclass artist on May 10, 2013 at 1:11 PM

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/10/geraldo-rivera-my-sources-tell-me-benghazi-was-about-running-missiles-to-syria-rebels/

Geraldo Rivera said Friday that his sources tell him the U.S. was involved in a secret mission in Libya to arm the Syrian rebels, which was the reason for the initial secrecy about the attack in Benghazi.

Rivera said on “Fox & Friends” that Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney may have been briefed by then-CIA Director David Petraeus “to suggest that there was a secret mission going on there, that we can’t go there, we can’t talk about it.”

“I believe, and my sources tell me, they were there to round up those shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles, they were going to hand those missiles over to the Turks and the Turks were going to give them to the rebels in Syria,” Rivera said. “It was like Iran-Contra, I think it merits gigantic investigation, it will all become clear.”

….and don’t tell me that John Boehner and Darrell Issa and others in the gop leadership didn’t know about this crap (or the gun-running)…..and THEY set on it BEFORE THE ELECTION to save Obama’s behind.

Traitorous.

PappyD61 on May 10, 2013 at 1:12 PM

“Tommy Vitor (Former Nat’l Security advisor to Obama) is tweeting that Republicans forced the White House to change the talking points…Is this an admission that the White House Lied? Holy Smokes!” – Rush Limbaugh

workingclass artist on May 10, 2013 at 1:11 PM

Yep. George Bush’s fault again.

oldroy on May 10, 2013 at 1:13 PM

Wow. Everything that we thought was going on…actually was. And, then some.

kingsjester on May 10, 2013 at 1:14 PM

“Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul wrote Friday that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton “should never hold high office again” in the wake of criticism over the administration’s handling of the lead up and aftermath of the attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

Paul made the comments in an op-ed Friday in The Washington Times…”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/10/paul-hillary-clinton-should-never-hold-high-office-again/#ixzz2SuXOIHwv

Gee…Ya Think?

workingclass artist on May 10, 2013 at 1:14 PM

Where is HAL?

Electrongod on May 10, 2013 at 12:56 PM

Friday Democrat Talking Points haven’t been released yet.

Del Dolemonte on May 10, 2013 at 1:14 PM

PappyD61 on May 10, 2013 at 1:12 PM

Ever since the Capone safe-opening I always take what Geraldo reports with a grain of salt or two.

oldroy on May 10, 2013 at 1:16 PM

Where is HAL?

Electrongod on May 10, 2013 at 12:56 PM

Repeatedly calling Hicks a Republican hack didn’t pan out. He’s waiting for someone over at DKos to come up with some other cliched nonsense for him to toss about.

NotCoach on May 10, 2013 at 1:16 PM

Hope this journolist scumbag goes down too…

“Top Hillary Clinton Ally Paul Begala: Republican Critics Of Benghazi Cover Up Close To Wearing A “Tin Foil Hat”…

http://weaselzippers.us/2013/05/10/top-hillary-clinton-ally-paul-begala-republican-critics-of-benghazi-cover-up-close-to-wearing-a-tin-foil-h

workingclass artist on May 10, 2013 at 1:17 PM

Friday Democrat Talking Points haven’t been released yet.

Del Dolemonte on May 10, 2013 at 1:14 PM

Huh..
HAL has the same daily schedule as Obama..

Hmmm.

Electrongod on May 10, 2013 at 1:17 PM

Throw Hillary under the bus? In a statement to ABC, Carney notably insulates the West Wing and not the State Department by saying “the only edits made by anyone here at the White House were stylistic and nonsubstantive.”

Well it would clear the way for Michelle, who hates Hillary anyway.

Iblis on May 10, 2013 at 1:18 PM

Wow. Everything that we thought was going on…actually was. And, then some.

kingsjester on May 10, 2013 at 1:14 PM

Yep. Iran-Contra. That was worse. That will be the whole story going forward. Every cable channel on TV will begin this evening to run non-stop retrospectives of Iran-Contra and Oliver North. Oh and Watergate.

oldroy on May 10, 2013 at 1:18 PM

Oh. We’ll see George Bush lied about WMD all weekend too. And Richard Nixon’s Vietnam war.

oldroy on May 10, 2013 at 1:20 PM

[PappyD61 on May 10, 2013 at 1:12 PM]

I’d take Rivera’s reporting with a boxcar full of salt.

Dusty on May 10, 2013 at 1:20 PM

Is it me or is this beginning to unravel quickly for the bad guys?

BuckeyeSam on May 10, 2013 at 1:21 PM

So, who changed the Benghazi talking points?
The Easter Bunny?? (figured I’d save Libfree the time to post)

ToddPA on May 10, 2013 at 1:05 PM

I’m going with the White House ghost, who apparently has a soft spot for Hillary Clinton. I can’t say with any certainty that it is the ghost of Lincoln but twice now Hillary has been the beneficiary of paranormal activity. The Rose Law Firm billing records were missing for close to two years even after there was a subpeona for them. Then poof, one morning they are sitting on a table in the White House. And now, the ghost apparently learned PowerPoint and the art of writing politically-based talking points.

Happy Nomad on May 10, 2013 at 1:21 PM

Well it would clear the way for Michelle, who hates Hillary anyway.

Iblis on May 10, 2013 at 1:18 PM

At least she would be the real first Black President.

oldroy on May 10, 2013 at 1:21 PM

I’m going with the White House ghost, who apparently has a soft spot for Hillary Clinton…

Happy Nomad on May 10, 2013 at 1:21 PM

Vince Foster’s spirit made it back from the park?

oldroy on May 10, 2013 at 1:23 PM

BuckeyeSam on May 10, 2013 at 1:21 PM

It’s not just you.

Obama’s chickens have come home…TO ROOOST!!!!

kingsjester on May 10, 2013 at 1:23 PM

Petraeus was, according to Hayes, shocked to see references to “al Qaeda, Ansar al Sharia, jihadists, Islamic extremists” etc. mysteriously gone from the rewritten talking points.

If he was actually shocked he is not as smart as I thought he was. Or he was extremely naive about this admin. I don’t think Petraeus is either that stupid or that naive. You can’t get four stars if you are.

“I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!” — Captain Renault, Casablanca

He may not have liked it, but he knew exactly what was happening and why. Saying he was “shocked” is his way of trying to avoid recriminations.

farsighted on May 10, 2013 at 1:23 PM

Iblis on May 10, 2013 at 1:18 PM

I have been thinking the same thing about mAo!
L

letget on May 10, 2013 at 1:24 PM

Is it me or is this beginning to unravel quickly for the bad guys?

BuckeyeSam on May 10, 2013 at 1:21 PM

It’s not even mid-afternoon and we’ve had a story about the lies being told about Benghazi and the IRS admission they deliberately targeted conservative groups ahead of last November’s election.

Makes you wonder what we’ll find in the Friday data dump.

Happy Nomad on May 10, 2013 at 1:24 PM

Looking forward to the Dems and Team Obama hosting their very own Nacht der langen Messer, a purge such as Operation Hummingbird…as they all scramble to not be the last one on the sinking ship. Appears there are not enough lifeboats to go around.

Ben Rhodes? He will be nominated for a Special Category Franz Kafka Literary Prize…

Seriously?

A professional fiction writer calling the shots in the Middle East?

Key national security advisor to the President?

Ben is the one who honchoed the many re-writes…

Now, who ordered the stand down?

Keep hammering.

coldwarrior on May 10, 2013 at 1:24 PM

the New york times today has an editorial about the republicans benghazi obsession.

Imagine the editorial if this had happened.

The Nixon administration revealed today the the memo they sent out with their spokesman for the watergate incident was changed 12 times!

HMMM!

gerrym51 on May 10, 2013 at 1:25 PM

Is it time to start the “who gets a Presidential pardon?” pool?

Rich H on May 10, 2013 at 1:26 PM

Makes you wonder what we’ll find in the Friday data dump.

Happy Nomad on May 10, 2013 at 1:24 PM

4PM is just around the corner. Immigration bill signed? Gun-control signed? Increased funding for Ocare signed? All led by Republicans in the House and Senate?

oldroy on May 10, 2013 at 1:26 PM

In a statement to ABC, Carney notably insulates the West Wing and not the State Department by saying “the only edits made by anyone here at the White House were stylistic and nonsubstantive.”

BS…and you are lying again Benghazi Jay. You said this:

‘Ambassador Rice was using unclassified talking points that were developed by the intelligence community and provided not just to her, not just to the executive branch, but to the legislative branch. And they represented the best assessment by our intelligence professionals about what had happened in Benghazi at that time.

‘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 — of these two institutions were changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility,’ because ‘consulate’ was inaccurate. Those talking points originated from the intelligence community. They reflect the IC’s best assessments of what they thought had happened.’

Note how Carney stressed that this was “developed by the intelligence community” and the “talking points originated from the intelligence community’…and the ONLY change that either the White House or the State Department made was to change the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility.’ Liar.

Resist We Much on May 10, 2013 at 1:26 PM

Carney said that on 28 November 2012.

Resist We Much on May 10, 2013 at 1:27 PM

If I were Joe Biden, I’d be sending Jill over to the White House to measure for new drapes…maybe start arranging for that shag carpet in the Presidential quarters to be replaced with something a little less South Chicago.

coldwarrior on May 10, 2013 at 1:28 PM

Carney notably insulates the West Wing and not the State Department by saying “the only edits made by anyone here at the White House were stylistic and nonsubstantive.”

What Barry is best at – being stylistic and nonsubstantive.

Marcola on May 10, 2013 at 1:28 PM

If I were Joe Biden, I’d be sending Jill over to the White House to measure for new drapes…maybe start arranging for that shag carpet in the Presidential quarters to be replaced with something a little less South Chicago.

coldwarrior on May 10, 2013 at 1:28 PM

Or if he knew and participated, do we get President Boehner?

oldroy on May 10, 2013 at 1:30 PM

Vince Foster’s spirit made it back from the park?

oldroy on May 10, 2013 at 1:23 PM

Or Ron Brown. Or one of the others- The Clintons have a long line of bodies behind them.

Happy Nomad on May 10, 2013 at 1:31 PM

I guess the campaign slogan “Al queda is Alive and Our Ambassador is Dead” didn’t poll well for Obama.

No wonder he needed to edit those talking points.

HumpBot Salvation on May 10, 2013 at 1:33 PM

So WHO came up with the
” blame a video” lie ?
WHO?
How did that meeting go ?

A : It was alqaeda who did this
B : yeah, but we can’t say that
A : So what do we tell the victims and their families
C : Tell them the Republicans did it
D : but they were not there and they don’t even have those weapons
A : whatever you come up with, no mention of islam you all
D : Blame Bush for Afcrapistan and Iraq wars
B : That’s old, even our trolls don’t believe it anymore
E : Gitmo ?
A : Nope .Hurts Hussein
D : Betrayus or Ham maybe
C : American people know their Military, won’t work.
A : and it will hurt the CinC
E : So thereis only one thing which provokes muslims to kill
A : The pastor who burned the koran ?
F : Old thing. But I’m sure there must be something more recent
A : OK , all of you ask your staff to find something and fast
B : My kid passed me a video which was kinda funny
A : and?
B : and it was about some islamic guy named moohamad
A : Show me
C : Me likey
D : lets go with it
A, B, C, D, E : YEEEAAAHHHH….

burrata on May 10, 2013 at 1:34 PM

As Libyan Security is crumbling, so are the Administration’s lies about #Benghazigate. Coincidence or Providence? You be the judge.

kingsjester on May 10, 2013 at 1:36 PM

oldroy on May 10, 2013 at 1:30 PM

That’s gonna be a problem…

But…the only other “republicans” on the succession list are Hagel and LaHood. None of these are good for the Nation. All the rest…staunch devoted Team Obama players.

coldwarrior on May 10, 2013 at 1:37 PM

What I am not getting:

The Clintons had done their duty with BO. They didn’t challenge him in the primaries, and BJ went out of his way at the Convention to help assure Bam-Bam’s victory. And the Clintons did this with every realization that a Romney victory would have much better served Hillary’s plans for 2016; and that a re-elected Obama wouldn’t lift a finger to help Hillary in 2016 over his vp.

So, then, why would Hillary stupidly craft and/or engage in a cover-up at Benghazi? All she had to do when she learned of the attack was to turn the matter over to Defense — call Panetta, send in the troops.

Was Hillary more worried about the lack of security at the compound than the far-worse ramifications of a cover-up?

Is Hillary just a congenital liar and lying comes easier than the potential, subsequent criticism of lax State Dept security in Libya?

I’m not getting the Clintons political interest in lying about all of this – from the night of the raid forward. There was no need for them to lie. The truth would have better served Hillary’s ambitions.

matthew8787 on May 10, 2013 at 1:40 PM

Petraeus was, according to Hayes, shocked to see references to “al Qaeda, Ansar al Sharia, jihadists, Islamic extremists” etc. mysteriously gone from the rewritten talking points. Which we already knew, kinda sorta, based on what Peter King revealed about Petraeus’s closed-doors testimony to the House Intelligence Committee last November.

Which is why Petraeus had to be smeared because of his affair and taken out of the picture.

Steve Z on May 10, 2013 at 1:45 PM

I believe that Cheryl Mills is being set up to be the highest ranking person to take the fall. Judging by her loyalty, she’ll gladly do it (probably knowing she’ll have the ultimate of golden parachutes)

olesparkie on May 10, 2013 at 1:46 PM

was victoria nuland that gal that screamed at Sheryl Atkisson? Maybe I’m mixing my Democrat most-transparent-admin evah scandals, but I recall some chick berating ATkisson over information regarding Benghazi or Fast and Furious.

ted c on May 10, 2013 at 1:48 PM

burrata on May 10, 2013 at 1:34 PM

+1. Probably not far off.

hillsoftx on May 10, 2013 at 1:52 PM

Here’s Ms Nuland lying to the media – a reporter from Fox News – in the State Department’s Daily Briefing asserting that the talking points spouted by Susan Rice on 5 Sunday talk shows were an accurate representation of the government’s ‘initial assessment’ even though she had, PERSONALLY, changed the ‘initial assessment’ to alleviate the political concerns and worries of her ‘superiors’:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=YyAUxaqh2Vs

Resist We Much on May 10, 2013 at 1:53 PM

Carney said that on 28 November 2012.

Resist We Much on May 10, 2013 at 1:27 PM

It’s time for Jay Carnage to resign.

TarheelBen on May 10, 2013 at 1:53 PM

At the same hearing, though, DNI James Clapper and acting CIA director Mike Morell — who, per Hayes, agreed to work with Sullivan and Rhodes to rewrite the talking points — told the House that they … didn’t know how the talking points got changed.

Jay Carney, in his November 27,2012 presser, was asked who asked Morell to be at the meeting. Carney’s answer: I don’t know.

My other point I wanted to raise with you on Ambassador Rice, and then I want to move to fiscal cliff, is the presence of the acting CIA Director in this meeting. Whose idea was that?

MR. CARNEY: I’m not sure whose idea it was.

Since Rhodes said this would be taken care of at the NSC meeting, and then Rhodes and McDonough working for Obama, there is no way Carney didn’t know. The press shouldn’t believe a thing he says.

Also note who Carney says the talking points came from, only the intelligence community. He says it repeatedly throughout the presser.

MR. CARNEY: Well, I’d say two things. First of all, Ambassador Rice has put out a statement; I would refer you to that. Secondly, I would simply say there are no unanswered questions about Ambassador Rice’s appearance on Sunday shows and the talking points that she used for those appearances that were provided by the intelligence community.

And that information was based on the best assessments of our intelligence community at the time.

Again, what your question seems to suggest is that it is more important that I or others used talking points provided by the intelligence community than actually what happened in Benghazi.

That’s because the assessment of the RSO of Libya and the Ambassador was scrubbed out.

Patriot Vet on May 10, 2013 at 1:53 PM

I’m not getting the Clintons political interest in lying about all of this – from the night of the raid forward. There was no need for them to lie. The truth would have better served Hillary’s ambitions.

matthew8787 on May 10, 2013 at 1:40 PM

She’s planning on running for the Presidency based on her super-successful tenure as SecState. Dead ambassadors, burning consulates, and rocky foreign policy tend to undercut all of that.

She needs Benghazi to go away and the best way of doing that quickly (or so she thought) was to lie her ass off about what happened. Victoria Nuland even laid it out for us- lie about the CIA warnings because that just gives Congress ammunition to use against State.

Happy Nomad on May 10, 2013 at 1:53 PM

Here’s Ms Nuland lying to the media – a reporter from Fox News – in the State Department’s Daily Briefing asserting that the talking points spouted by Susan Rice on 5 Sunday talk shows were an accurate representation of the government’s ‘initial assessment’ even though she had, PERSONALLY, changed the ‘initial assessment’ to alleviate the political concerns and worries of her ‘superiors’:

Resist We Much on May 10, 2013 at 1:53 PM

It’s 2pm. Why hasn’t Kerry already asked for and received her resignation?

Happy Nomad on May 10, 2013 at 1:56 PM

The truth would have better served Hillary’s ambitions.

matthew8787 on May 10, 2013 at 1:40 PM

Don’t think so. The first aim is to see who/what could have prevented this situation. 1) Escalating security 2) Removing Amb. Stevens from harm’s way. Those two ultimately fall directly on her shoulders.

hillsoftx on May 10, 2013 at 1:56 PM

According to Fox, more whistle lowers are about to come forward. Clinton is toast and Obama is next.

Ta111 on May 10, 2013 at 2:01 PM

Meet Ben Rhodes

We are in the very best of hands.

/

Key West Reader on May 10, 2013 at 2:02 PM

Comment pages: 1 2