The amazing, shrinking Benghazi talking points

posted at 8:41 am on May 16, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

The White House finally released the e-mail string that led to the creation of the talking points for the Benghazi terrorist attack that somehow completely missed the fact that it was a terrorist attack.  Did that succeed in having the Obama administration’s argument that it reflected the best intelligence at the time?  Not if you read page 57, in which everyone on the e-mail circuit was informed of this:

aq

 

On Friday evening at 9:43 pm, the CIA acknowledged that ”FBI says AQ (not AQIM) was involved and they are pursuing that theory.  So we are not ahead of law enforcement now[,]” referring to an earlier concern that identifying this as a terrorist attack would interfere with the FBI’s investigation of the attack. However, almost immediately thereafter, even the more generic mentions of purposeful attacks involving Islamic extremists disappear from the talking points, which left Susan Rice with little more to offer than a demonstration involving a YouTube video — a video which, it should be pointed out, never gets mentioned in the e-mail string.

Who made that decision?  It’s difficult to say.  The CIA did a lot of the editing on the talking points, but as Politico notes, much of that was driven by State Department concerns about how the information would reflect on them:

As the number of people handling the Benghazi talking points grew, the amount of information the document offered shrank.

Emails and documents released by the White House Wednesday reveal an editing process that valued caution over comprehensiveness as officials worked to remove language that would have assigned blame for the attack or suggested ways the incident could have been prevented. The release also showed that the CIA, and not the State Department, made the decision to scrub references to al Qaeda, al Qaeda linked groups, and prior terrorist attacks in the region.

But the newly public email chains suggest it was the State Department that was most concerned about taking the blame for the attack. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland sought changes to the talking points that would shield the agency — then led by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — from congressional accusations that it had failed to properly secure the post, given the unstable situation in that area.

At one point, Nuland even wrote to a chain of administration officials relaying her concern that the talking points could be used as a cudgel against the State Department.

Interestingly, Politico never picks up on the reference on page 57 that the FBI had already figured out that al-Qaeda was involved, and not the local branch/affiliate.  Neither, for that matter, does Jake Tapper at CNN.  Jon Karl doesn’t mention the FBI assessment on page 57, but does note another excised passage:

The emails confirm the ABC News report that the so-called “talking points” written by the CIA on the attack underwent extensive revisions – 12 versions – and that substantial changes were made after the State Department expressed concerns.

The early versions of the talking points, drafted entirely by the CIA, included references to the al Qaeda affiliate Ansar al-Sharia and to previous CIA warnings about terror threats in Benghazi. State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland expressed concerns about including those references in the talking points. …

The following sections were crossed out and removed from later drafts:

  • “On 10 September the Agency notified Embassy Cairo of social media reports calling for a demonstration and encouraging jihadists to break into the Embassy.”
  • “… as to who is responsible for the violence, although the crowd almost certainly was a mix of individuals. That being said, there are indications that Islamic extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.”
  • “The wide availability of weapons and experienced fighters in Libya almost certainly contributed to the lethality of the attacks.”
  • “The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al-Qaeda in Benghazi and eastern Libya. Since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interest in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador’s convoy. We cannot rule out that individuals had previously surveilled the US facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks.”

One official, whose name was redacted from the email chain, responded to the changes: “They are fine with me. But, pretty sure HPSCI won’t like them :-)” HPSCI refers to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, members of which had requested the talking points.

Stephen Hayes, another reporter whose work the White House wanted to refute, wrote later that the release confirmed his and Karl’s accounts:

The documents, first reported by THE WEEKLY STANDARD in articles here and here, directly contradict claims by White House press secretary Jay Carney and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that the revisions of those talking points were driven by the intelligence community and show heavy input from top Obama administration officials, particularly those at the State Department.

The emails provide further detail about the rewriting of the talking points during a 24-hour period from midday September 14 to midday September 15. As THE WEEKLY STANDARD previously reported, a briefing from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence shows that the big changes came in three waves – internally at the CIA, after email feedback from top administration officials, and during or after a meeting of high-ranking intelligence and national security officials the following morning.

The initial CIA changes softened some of the language about the participants in the Benghazi assault – from “Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda” to “Islamic extremists.” But CIA officials also added bullet points about the possible participation of Ansar al Sharia, an al Qaeda-linked jihadist group, and previous warnings about the deteriorating security situation in Benghazi. Those additions came out after the talking points were sent to “the interagency,” where the CIA’s final draft was further stripped down to little more than boilerplate. The half dozen references to terrorists – both in Benghazi and more generally – all but disappeared. Gone were references to al Qaeda, Ansar al Sharia, jihadists, Islamic extremists, etc. The only remaining mention was a note that “extremists” had participated in the attack.

As striking as what appears in the email traffic is what does not. There is no mention of the YouTube video that would become a central part of the administration’s explanation of the attacks to the American people until a brief mention in the subject line of emails coming out of an important meeting where further revisions were made.

Hayes notes that Hillary Clinton’s and Jay Carney’s attempts to shove the changes off onto the CIA were less than honest.  Mike Morell made the changes, but on the urging of State:

Carney, in particular, is likely to face tough questioning about the contents of the emails because he made claims to reporters that were untrue. “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 the word ‘consulate’ was inaccurate,” he told reporters on November 28, 2012.

That’s not true. An email sent at 9:15 PM on September 14, from an official in the CIA’s Office of Public Affairs to others at the agency, described the process this way. “The State Department had major reservations with much or most of the document. We revised the document with their concerns in mind.”

That directly contradicts what Carney said. It’s also difficult to reconcile with claims made by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during testimony she gave January 23 on Capitol Hill.

“It was an intelligence product,” she said, adding later that the “intelligence community was the principal decider about what went into talking points.” (See here for the original version of the talking points and the final one.)

The result? We have an unequivocal statement almost in the exact middle of the evolution of these data points that the FBI had already determined that the attack involved al-Qaeda, which shouldn’t have come as a surprise to anyone, considering that the attack took place on the anniversary of the original 9/11 attacks.  Yet the final product, pushed in large part by State, eliminated all but the most ambiguous of suggestions that extremists had conducted an attack.  The talking points as communicated on September 16th added in the YouTube video nonsense to which the administration clung through the funerals and Obama’s speech to the UN late in September before finally giving it up.

How did the YouTube video get added to the State Department presentation?  How did everyone manage to ignore the FBI’s investigative direction and produce talking points that suggested almost the total opposite?  Those are questions the HPSCI should ask, and demand answers.

Update: Eli Lake certainly noticed the FBI’s analysis, and also thinks the CIA is getting off too easy for its decision to trust the local militia for security.


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

…is the real scandal, not whether the talking points described the attackers as Islamic extremists or terrorist.
 
bayam on May 16, 2013 at 9:26 AM

 
Hint: It starts with “There” and ends with “is only one scandal”.
 
Congratulations on not fleeing the thread yet, btw.
 
Well, maybe you haven’t fled. Hard to say. Par for the course for you, though, isn’t it?
 
rogerb on May 16, 2013 at 10:32 AM

 
Ha.
 
Par for the course.

rogerb on May 16, 2013 at 11:33 AM

Regardless, even the most favorable (to your theory )reading of that bit doesn’t in any way settle or even move forward your case. The reason Politco, Tapper, Karl don’t mention this detail is because they are rightly working from a comprehensive reading of the docs and emails.

And what would that “comprehensive reading” be?

NotCoach on May 16, 2013 at 11:30 AM

At this stage?
What the rational folks have been saying for a while – that this wasn’t/isn’t some political manipulation by Obama or WH or campaign…but a not atypical process following and event like this…with things unclear in the early days…and some agencies having some turf battles.

verbaluce on May 16, 2013 at 11:37 AM

At this stage?
What the rational folks have been saying for a while – that this wasn’t/isn’t some political manipulation by Obama or WH or campaign…but a not atypical process following and event like this…with things unclear in the early days…and some agencies having some turf battles.

verbaluce on May 16, 2013 at 11:37 AM

You’re right, it’s all so clear to me now. The FBI and CIA knew it was a terrorist attack and State (this is the turf war part) forced them to change the talking points because…turf war!

NotCoach on May 16, 2013 at 11:40 AM

verbaluce on May 16, 2013 at 11:22 AM

Are you somehow claiming that Rice’s comments on five morning shows were accurate?

blink on May 16, 2013 at 11:26 AM

You think she was intentionally and knowingly lying?
Do you consistently object to morning news show guests working from and relying on talking points?

verbaluce on May 16, 2013 at 11:40 AM

How does one differentiate between AQ and AQIM?

al Qaeda, the mother organization, has had a hand in standing up AQIM since before OIF started, camping out in Iraq taking in terrorists from places like… Benghazi. Seems that AQ and AQ in the Magreb have a nice overlap of personnel and outlook because of that, although we did get rid of some really nasty leaders of it. From there AQIM went over to Africa to begin consolidating old Muslim Brotherhood terror organizations under its wing, including the one in Libya. That was camped out with a couple of tribes bordering Algeria and Egypt.

Given that AQ was started by MB members and that AQIM started as a part of AQ and then conglomerated and cobbled together MB fostered terror groups that weren’t doing so hot, exactly where is the distinction? Operationally? AQIM continues in the long tradition of accepting all-source funding which includes KSA. Some of the rich guys in KSA also sponsor AQ and the MB, and started the MB back in the 20′s. It seems that these are just different heads of the same, horrific monster, and that monster feeds from KSA while the various heads grab any funds they can convince/extort/steal/gain by criminal activities and charities. Perhaps it is time to just start treating disparate organizations that come from the same funding source and root stock as just one larger organization. They exchange personnel, shift funding between them and even share resources so trying to say it is this terror group or that terror group or a third newly named old terror group that has taken a new name for confusion just doesn’t accurately describe the situation.

Of course if you did that you would have to point at KSA and stop kissing the Saudi’s. You know the people putting radical mosques in the US to encourage terror bombers, like those in Boston? Those guys. KSA. Terror Inc.

ajacksonian on May 16, 2013 at 11:41 AM

Gee,it’s pitiful how Toria Nuland was so concerned how Chris’ death would reflect poorly on the State Department.

BigAlSouth on May 16, 2013 at 11:44 AM

You’re right, it’s all so clear to me now.

NotCoach on May 16, 2013 at 11:40 AM

If only…
So your theory is what exactly…
What was the plot here as far as the talking points?
Who directed it?
Who was in on it?
What was Obama’s involvement in all of it?
How was his campaign involved?
Who from CIA/STATE/FBI/WH/Campaign worked together to put together and execute this inaccurate talking points strategy…to achieve what exactly?

verbaluce on May 16, 2013 at 11:46 AM

You think she was intentionally and knowingly lying?
Do you consistently object to morning news show guests working from and relying on talking points?

verbaluce on May 16, 2013 at 11:40 AM

That’s a good point. Was Rice privy to the fact that the CIA and FBI had already determined this was a terrorist attack, or was she just repeating the lie she had been told. Regardless, Rice is just a bit schmuck in all of this anyways. The real players are State and the WH.

NotCoach on May 16, 2013 at 11:46 AM

verbaluce on May 16, 2013 at 11:22 AM

Are you somehow claiming that Rice’s comments on five morning shows were accurate?

blink on May 16, 2013 at 11:26 AM

You think she was intentionally and knowingly lying?
Do you consistently object to morning news show guests working from and relying on talking points?

verbaluce on May 16, 2013 at 11:40 AM

Yep.

She was probably included in the intragency loop cleared by the WH as the Talking Points were developed.

Might try to read those e-mails in yesterday’s dump.

workingclass artist on May 16, 2013 at 11:47 AM

You think she was intentionally and knowingly lying?
Do you consistently object to morning news show guests working from and relying on talking points?

verbaluce on May 16, 2013 at 11:40 AM

That’s a good point. Was Rice privy to the fact that the CIA and FBI had already determined this was a terrorist attack, or was she just repeating the lie she had been told. Regardless, Rice is just a bit schmuck in all of this anyways. The real players are State and the WH.

NotCoach

She was in on it…UN

Duh!

workingclass artist on May 16, 2013 at 11:48 AM

…Who from CIA/STATE/FBI/WH/Campaign worked together to put together and execute this inaccurate talking points strategy…to achieve what exactly?
 
verbaluce on May 16, 2013 at 11:46 AM

 
Let’s ask verbaluce:
 

What most distinguishes Benghazi from the other attacks Ed references is is that this happened within the final weeks of a presidential campaign. Romney has been unable to find any edge, or any way to an edge, on FP. He wants to suggest he differs from Obama – but when pressed can’t really say how.
He rushed out an inept statement within hours of the attack. His campaign saw – and continues to see – and opportunity here.
This is all they got – and they’ll be slinging this mud right up to election day.
 
verbaluce on October 22, 2012 at 1:28 PM

rogerb on May 16, 2013 at 11:49 AM

What was not released were transcripts of the teleconferences between the agencies coordinated by Ben & Jake as the talking points were spontaneously evolving….among other things.

workingclass artist on May 16, 2013 at 11:51 AM

PSSST … there’s a rumor going around that CARNEY is out !
We’ll see.

pambi on May 16, 2013 at 11:52 AM

verbaluce on May 16, 2013 at 11:46 AM

Isn’t that the point of the investigation?

You know, you really aren’t any fun anymore on this subject. The excuse making is so far behind the truth at this point that all anyone is doing talking to you is wasting their time. Your major problem is that you can’t bring yourself to admit the obvious because doing so will require asking difficult questions. And the obvious, of course, is that State (and probably the WH) were very interested in not admitting this was a terrorist attack. Why?

NotCoach on May 16, 2013 at 11:53 AM

Yep.

She was probably included in the intragency loop cleared by the WH as the Talking Points were developed.

Might try to read those e-mails in yesterday’s dump.

workingclass artist on May 16, 2013 at 11:47 AM

I haven’t read all of the emails. Was she part of the fact massaging?

NotCoach on May 16, 2013 at 11:54 AM

PSSST … there’s a rumor going around that CARNEY is out !
We’ll see.

pambi on May 16, 2013 at 11:52 AM

Que Dan Savage!

Diversity!

workingclass artist on May 16, 2013 at 12:02 PM

You know, you really aren’t any fun anymore on this subject. The excuse making is so far behind the truth at this point that all anyone is doing talking to you is wasting their time. Your major problem is that you can’t bring yourself to admit the obvious because doing so will require asking difficult questions. And the obvious, of course, is that State (and probably the WH) were very interested in not admitting this was a terrorist attack. Why?

NotCoach on May 16, 2013 at 11:53 AM

I’m well aware that I’m not going to convince you to in any way even consider the possibility that the narrative you’re buying is wrong.
But if it’s not fun for me to continually point out that your narrative is fed purely by dis-proven theories…then I guess I am indeed a wet blanket.
Also, don’t think that my challenging all of this in any way reflects some position that nothing went wrong in Benghazi. A sh*tload did (obviously). Would be great if congress could focus on that…instead of this.

verbaluce on May 16, 2013 at 12:07 PM

Yep.

She was probably included in the intragency loop cleared by the WH as the Talking Points were developed.

Might try to read those e-mails in yesterday’s dump.

workingclass artist on May 16, 2013 at 11:47 AM

I haven’t read all of the emails. Was she part of the fact massaging?

NotCoach on May 16, 2013 at 11:54 AM

Read them.

Jake Tapper made it easy on his CNN link.

The e-mails confirm intragency teleconferences approved by the WH as this was rolling along…Also mentions including Justice by request of FBI.

Doesn’t name all the agencies in the e-mails released but UN always goes hand in hand with State on this stuff.

That’s one reason UN Amb. Rice was selected…coordinated with Obama’s 9/25 UN appearance.

The transcript of those intragency teleconferences hasn’t been released even to congress.

workingclass artist on May 16, 2013 at 12:09 PM

Why the right is pursuing this petty and trivial line of attack is really hard to comprehend.

bayam on May 16, 2013 at 9:00 AM

There, there, now. We’ll use more Baby Powder next time.

Tsar of Earth on May 16, 2013 at 12:11 PM

I’m well aware that I’m not going to convince you to in any way even consider the possibility that the narrative you’re buying is wrong.

verbaluce on May 16, 2013 at 12:07 PM

You can choke that chicken until your get blisters if you want, but the rest of us have moved on to wanting to know why State and the WH invented the video lie.

NotCoach on May 16, 2013 at 12:12 PM

This wasn’t a turf battle between State and agencies with active intel efforts. The emails make it clear that people wanted these changes made for political purposes – NOT because of any difference in opinion regarding intel.

blink on May 16, 2013 at 12:05 PM

BINGO!

Totally Coordinated…

workingclass artist on May 16, 2013 at 12:12 PM

That’s one reason UN Amb. Rice was selected…coordinated with Obama’s 9/25 UN appearance.

workingclass artist on May 16, 2013 at 12:09 PM

Maybe, but Rice is pretty stupid. I can see her being handed a piece of paper with talking points and running with it no questions asked. I would also suggest that our UN reps are last to hear about interagency discussions because they really have no say in anything. They are technically nothing more than mouth pieces for American interests.

NotCoach on May 16, 2013 at 12:16 PM

I’m well aware that I’m not going to convince you to in any way even consider the possibility that the narrative you’re buying is wrong.

verbaluce on May 16, 2013 at 12:07 PM

You can choke that chicken until your get blisters if you want, but the rest of us have moved on to wanting to know why State and the WH invented the video lie.

NotCoach on May 16, 2013 at 12:12 PM

I’d question that you’ve ‘moved on’.
And I’ll welcome your well tested blister remedies, should I need.

verbaluce on May 16, 2013 at 12:23 PM

Susan Rice very clearly claimed, on each one of those Sunday morning shows, that Benghazi was “in fact” caused by protests over that lame YouTube video. Yet nobody on the ground in either Tripoli or Benghazi, nobody at all, ever mentions any protests. I’d like to know who first cooked up the idea to blame the whole thing on a non-existent protest over an incredibly lame, cheaply made, and very poorly dubbed (it looks and sounds like the word “Mohammed” was clumsily added over the original dialogue) five minute clip on the web? No doubt in my mind that story came from Cankles.

Stu Gotts on May 16, 2013 at 12:24 PM

You can choke that chicken until your get blisters if you want, but the rest of us have moved on to wanting to know why State and the WH invented the video lie.

NotCoach on May 16, 2013 at 12:12 PM

If you don’t know by now you are hopeless.

Basilsbest on May 16, 2013 at 12:28 PM

If you don’t know by now you are hopeless.

Basilsbest on May 16, 2013 at 12:28 PM

It’s about establishing facts. The fact that an attempt to cover up Benghazi was a terrorist attack has been established. Now we need to established the facts for why.

NotCoach on May 16, 2013 at 12:33 PM

That’s one reason UN Amb. Rice was selected…coordinated with Obama’s 9/25 UN appearance.

workingclass artist on May 16, 2013 at 12:09 PM

Maybe, but Rice is pretty stupid. I can see her being handed a piece of paper with talking points and running with it no questions asked. I would also suggest that our UN reps are last to hear about interagency discussions because they really have no say in anything. They are technically nothing more than mouth pieces for American interests.

NotCoach on May 16, 2013 at 12:16 PM

What is your point…Do you even have one?

Read the e-mails and get back to us.

workingclass artist on May 16, 2013 at 12:33 PM

If you don’t know by now you are hopeless.

Basilsbest on May 16, 2013 at 12:28 PM

It’s about establishing facts. The fact that an attempt to cover up Benghazi was a terrorist attack has been established. Now we need to established the facts for why.

NotCoach on May 16, 2013 at 12:33 PM

Here’s a place to start…There was a presidential election happening in about 6 weeks.

That would be one motive.

workingclass artist on May 16, 2013 at 12:35 PM

Here’s a place to start…There was a presidential election happening in about 6 weeks.

That would be one motive.

workingclass artist on May 16, 2013 at 12:35 PM

You guys are missing the point here. We know what the Fluke the score is. But we need to establish proof. That’s my point. And really, that’s my point to verbalidiocy. He can’t accept the established facts. We are moving on to establish the facts (proof) for why.

NotCoach on May 16, 2013 at 12:40 PM

What is your point…Do you even have one?

Read the e-mails and get back to us.

workingclass artist on May 16, 2013 at 12:33 PM

No, I don’t have a point. Fluke off and go talk to someone else.

NotCoach on May 16, 2013 at 12:41 PM

You think she was intentionally and knowingly lying?

She was either intentionally and knowingly lying, or she was a feckless dupe parroting a line that nobody could substantiate. Yeah, just the kind of person I would have wanted as Secretary of State.

UnrepentantCurmudgeon on May 16, 2013 at 12:46 PM

At this stage?
What the rational folks have been saying for a while – that this wasn’t/isn’t some political manipulation by Obama or WH or campaign…but a not atypical process following and event like this…with things unclear in the early days…and some agencies having some turf battles.

verbaluce on May 16, 2013 at 11:37 AM

You know, except for the bits in black and white, and in English, mind you, where they say items are being changed to keep information away from Congress who might use it to beat up the State Department (with open references to the House committee for good measure).

That’s nothing *but* political, you a$$wipe.

Midas on May 16, 2013 at 12:48 PM

She was either intentionally and knowingly lying, or she was a feckless dupe parroting a line that nobody could substantiate. Yeah, just the kind of person I would have wanted as Secretary of State.

UnrepentantCurmudgeon on May 16, 2013 at 12:46 PM

Or head of the NSA. As a bobblehead she’s fine at the UN, but not anywhere else.

NotCoach on May 16, 2013 at 12:48 PM

Now we need to established the facts for why.

Why? We now know that what we said they were doing … they were doing. There can be no good explanation, and historians will debate the “why” for the next 50 years, as they do with Nixon and Watergate. All I care about right now is that heads must roll … starting with the rotten head at the top.

UnrepentantCurmudgeon on May 16, 2013 at 12:49 PM

Or head of the NSA.

I sit corrected.

UnrepentantCurmudgeon on May 16, 2013 at 12:50 PM

What is your point…Do you even have one?

Read the e-mails and get back to us.

workingclass artist on May 16, 2013 at 12:33 PM

No, I don’t have a point. Fluke off and go talk to someone else.

NotCoach on May 16, 2013 at 12:41 PM

No free condom dispensaries down here yet…But I’ll be sure to Fluke off when they do…

Didn’t mean to pi$$ you off…But your comments can be sorta opaque.

workingclass artist on May 16, 2013 at 12:53 PM

Of course I’ll have to find a local Fluke and get blindly drunk…

workingclass artist on May 16, 2013 at 12:54 PM

Why? We now know that what we said they were doing … they were doing. There can be no good explanation, and historians will debate the “why” for the next 50 years, as they do with Nixon and Watergate. All I care about right now is that heads must roll … starting with the rotten head at the top.

UnrepentantCurmudgeon on May 16, 2013 at 12:49 PM

Seriously, WTH is wrong with you people? Why? Why?? Because it rubs the lotion on its skin? Give me a Fluking break. Of course we want to establish proof for why!

Why buries Obama. What we have now does not. If the country was nothing but Hot Air posters Obama would have not won in 2008 let alone 2012. Why needs to be proven to bring the support needed to, at the very least, make this administration totally impotent.

NotCoach on May 16, 2013 at 12:54 PM

No free condom dispensaries down here yet…But I’ll be sure to Fluke off when they do…

Didn’t mean to pi$$ you off…But your comments can be sorta opaque.

workingclass artist on May 16, 2013 at 12:53 PM

You know what? I’m sorry. Maybe I’m not clear enough. Rice is dumber than rocks and may not of been involved in creating the talking points. She isn’t good for anything but winding up and unleashing on the public with preset gum flapping commands. That’s my point.

NotCoach on May 16, 2013 at 12:59 PM

Why? We now know that what we said they were doing … they were doing. There can be no good explanation, and historians will debate the “why” for the next 50 years, as they do with Nixon and Watergate. All I care about right now is that heads must roll … starting with the rotten head at the top.

UnrepentantCurmudgeon on May 16, 2013 at 12:49 PM

Seriously, WTH is wrong with you people? Why? Why?? Because it rubs the lotion on its skin? Give me a Fluking break. Of course we want to establish proof for why!

Why buries Obama. What we have now does not. If the country was nothing but Hot Air posters Obama would have not won in 2008 let alone 2012. Why needs to be proven to bring the support needed to, at the very least, make this administration totally impotent.

NotCoach on May 16, 2013 at 12:54 PM

Facts in a chain of evidence buries Obama…Why aids the prosecutors argument unless the Why of it shows up in testimony.

So we’ll see…

workingclass artist on May 16, 2013 at 12:59 PM

You think she was intentionally and knowingly lying?
Do you consistently object to morning news show guests working from and relying on talking points?

verbaluce on May 16, 2013 at 11:40 AM

Nothing wrong with talking points provided they resemble a fact and/or truth.

Either she’s a bit time liar or a big time dimwit. Not sure which is preferable.

Dunno about you, but if I’m going to hit the news circuits, be on every TV station and be the face of “The Administration’s Talking Points”, then be d*mned sure I’m going to vet them myself.

But then again, I’m not a big time dimwit nor a bit time liar.

YMMV, however.

kim roy on May 16, 2013 at 1:05 PM

No free condom dispensaries down here yet…But I’ll be sure to Fluke off when they do…

Didn’t mean to pi$$ you off…But your comments can be sorta opaque.

workingclass artist on May 16, 2013 at 12:53 PM

You know what? I’m sorry. Maybe I’m not clear enough. Rice is dumber than rocks and may not of been involved in creating the talking points. She isn’t good for anything but winding up and unleashing on the public with preset gum flapping commands. That’s my point.

NotCoach on May 16, 2013 at 12:59 PM

S’alright…Most of my smartass comments are meant to be offered in sportsmanship.

I think maybe we’re both right.

You’re right that she’s an idiot incapable of providing valuable imput…I’m right that being involved doesn’t mean she had to do anything other then occupy a chair and say yes.

either way…Her talk show appearances were coordinated with Il Duce’s epic defense of our Bill of Rights at his 9/25 UN Wave his presidential wanker speech.

workingclass artist on May 16, 2013 at 1:06 PM

kim roy on May 16, 2013 at 1:05 PM

Oh and might I add if I were left to hang on faulty talking points after being bald faced lied to and given bad documentation (and that’s what it would take to shill the talking points Rice did), then be sure I’d be singing that tune of who told me and when.

But then I have ethics. Again, YMMV.

kim roy on May 16, 2013 at 1:06 PM

Facts in a chain of evidence buries Obama…Why aids the prosecutors argument unless the Why of it shows up in testimony.

So we’ll see…

workingclass artist on May 16, 2013 at 12:59 PM

Where’s the illegal act though? That’s the problem. Why is very important here because this is political. Maybe the other shoe to drop that may make why unnecessary will be evidence that a stand-down order was given. Of course that may be part of why we have the invented video meme to begin with.

NotCoach on May 16, 2013 at 1:07 PM

“These don’t resolve all my issues or those of my building leadership,” Nuland wrote.

…my building leadership.

The building: State Department

The leader: Any Guesses?

This stuff isn’t rocket science; it’s basic investigative work and, at this point, only involves the ability to read and understand the English language (a calendar and clock wouldn’t hurt, as well).

Another question, still not answered (and, maddeningly, not asked):

Where was the Commander in Chief?

Hicks in-person phone call with SOS Clinton was at 3 a.m. Libya time, only 9 p.m. in the White House. Where was the President? Watching Modern Family (it was a Tuesday), or Criminal Minds? Working out? Hanging with Beyonce? Working on his putting stroke?

Does this not interest anyone? The President appoints Ambassadors. Where is the photo-op from the “Situation Room?” Was this not important enough to be a “Situation?”

Who told the military not to head to Benghazi with all due dispatch? Forget whether or not they would/could have made it — when the scramble call comes, you go. Besides, terrorist attacks don’t stop when the whistle blows; there’s no game clock telling you when it’s over. Besides, do you not try to save your child when the house is on fire?

Where was the President? This is a man who can personally oversee the hit list for every terrorist in the world, can personally direct the Bin Laden raid (lol), and can find a friendly photographer seemingly anywhere. But, on 9-11-2012, he’s nowhere to be found and nobody asks the question.

Where was the Commander in Chief and what was he doing, personally, while his friend (and only coincidentally, Ambassador to Libya) was under attack and killed?

Since when is CIC a day job?

IndieDogg on May 16, 2013 at 1:09 PM

BTW
 

You think she was intentionally and knowingly lying?
 
verbaluce on May 16, 2013 at 11:40 AM

 
Well played:
 
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/05/09/benghazi-whats-new/comment-page-3/#comment-6967160

rogerb on May 16, 2013 at 1:10 PM

Facts in a chain of evidence buries Obama…Why aids the prosecutors argument unless the Why of it shows up in testimony.

So we’ll see…

workingclass artist on May 16, 2013 at 12:59 PM

Where’s the illegal act though? That’s the problem. Why is very important here because this is political. Maybe the other shoe to drop that may make why unnecessary will be evidence that a stand-down order was given. Of course that may be part of why we have the invented video meme to begin with.

NotCoach on May 16, 2013 at 1:07 PM

Off the top of my head and Not in any particular order…

The Stand Down Order.
The Policy Incompetence of not planning strategically for 9/11 anniversary.
The Denial of requested increased Security especially after the attempted assassination of the British Ambassador.
How States budget or any budgets in the executive are spent.

workingclass artist on May 16, 2013 at 1:15 PM

NotCoach on May 16, 2013 at 1:07 PM

Bill Clinton was impeached for lying…

Who knew Monica would make a fetish souvenier out of that blue dress…certainly not Bill Clinton.

workingclass artist on May 16, 2013 at 1:22 PM

Off the top of my head and Not in any particular order…

The Stand Down Order.
The Policy Incompetence of not planning strategically for 9/11 anniversary.
The Denial of requested increased Security especially after the attempted assassination of the British Ambassador.
How States budget or any budgets in the executive are spent.

workingclass artist on May 16, 2013 at 1:15 PM

If Obama were to abandon an entire brigade of Marines he should obviously be impeached, but I still don’t see what is illegal in that. What law is broken? That is not to say this administration has not done anything illegal (IRS scandal for example), but on this specific issue I don’t know what law was broken. Impeachment itself is a political process, not a legal process beyond the rules governing it and the results of a successful conviction.

NotCoach on May 16, 2013 at 1:23 PM

This from NRO Campaign Spot from the emails released yesterday;

Page 4: NE (Near East Desk/Bureau/Division) will add material about warning we gave to Cairo prior to the demonstrations, as well as warnings we issued prior to 9/11 anniversary

Very interesting when you consider this post from The PJ Tatler from 9/10/12, sorta destroys the video for being the reason for the Cairo protests and elsewhere;

Jihadi groups in Egypt, including Islamic Jihad, the Sunni Group, and Al Gamaa Al Islamiyya have issued a statement threatening to burn the U.S. Embassy in Cairo to the ground.

According to El Fagr, they are calling for the immediate release of the Islamic jihadis who are imprisonment and in detention centers in the U.S. including Guantanamo Bay: The group, which consists of many members from al-Qaeda, called [especially] for the quick release of the jihadi [mujahid] sheikh, Omar Abdul Rahman [the "Blind Sheikh"], whom they described as a scholar and jihadi who sacrificed his life for the Egyptian Umma, who was ignored by the Mubarak regime, and [President] Morsi is refusing to intervene on his behalf and release him, despite promising that he would. The Islamic Group has threatened to burn the U.S. Embassy in Cairo with those in it, and taking hostage those who remain [alive], unless the Blind Sheikh is immediately released.

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/09/10/jihadis-threaten-to-burn-u-s-embassy-in-cairo/

crazywater on May 16, 2013 at 1:34 PM

President blames Benghazi on lack of funding…

Once again, this POS blamed a lack of sufficient funding for the deaths of 4 Americans in Benghazi….

Ironically, Obama called on 2 US Military personnel sacrifice for his @$$ by standing out in the rain holding up umbrellas so he wouldn’t get wet!

When it benefits HIM, when he needs a human umbrella holder or a raid to get OBL, he calls & the miltry answers! When Stevens was BEGGING for additional security – after 2 previous terrorist attacks – Obama REFUSED! While Amerians fought for 8 hours and waited for Obama to provide cover for them, his @$$ told rescue forces to STAND DOWN, sentencing them to die!

What a POS!

easyt65 on May 16, 2013 at 2:16 PM

I think the key is Patreus…The way they got rid of him.

That was too clever by half

workingclass artist on May 16, 2013 at 4:54 PM

Comment pages: 1 2