Do you know that the original drafter of the first draft did not revise the first draft to the draft after 4:00 pm draft which contained a reference to ‘demonstration’.
You say ‘evidently’ - what is your evidence?
The e-mails that are subject to this discussion are the Talking Points E-mails and they are all disclosed.
Kindly post the the wording from Xema’s post that I allegedly avoided that brought up the alleged lies from Obama and members of his administration.
I am after what you are alleging to be a lie and what is your back up for it other than s lot of rightwing noise that there has got to be a lie in there somewhere and that Obsma is guilty until proven innocent.
Give me something Obama said that is a lie, sticking with Benghazi, and provide an objective explanation for why you think your suspicion of Obama’s alleged lie has merit and is properly based.
I’m not talking about the scandal being over for the right wing activist or deeply interested base. It is over because enough is out now in public to see that the only scandal on Benghazi is the way the right has distorted or ignored the known facts.
Cite s statement by Obama or Hillary about Benghazi that you deem sufficient to spend Congresses time proving that it is a lie and a scandal.
What statements from any Administration official are you accusing of ‘citing’ the video-protest demonstration 'as an explanation’ for the attack on the consulate and CIA Annex in Benghazi?
Please provide a transcript to the full statement in context to what you have in mind to make your claim,
Was this a miss-speak since you now claim that you have, “been carefully trying to avoid saying that the Obama admin lied.”
Isn’t “giving the appearance” of something not true a form of lying?
And he was told by a moderator to stop. So it’s unfair to attack him when he can’t respond. He can’t discuss other reasons to dislike Clinton in this thread. I thought he could, but the mods made it clear that he can’t.
I’m confident you are capable of finding a transcript of the remarks Obama made on Sept 25 (two weeks after the attack) to the UN, in which he clearly made a connection between video and attack.
I would concur that this applies to what was done re the Benghazi attack and the video.
It’s certainly true that the truth about the video’s contribution to the attack (none) was known by those present in Benghazi, and thus was knowable and should have been known to Hillary - and thus to Obama. To be still presenting the video as relevant two weeks later seems to fully merit the description “giving the appearance of something not true”.
Whoa, there, just a second. You say the video had no influence on the attackers. You know this how, exactly? There were riots, demonstrations, all kinds bad stuff happening in many diverse places. The presumption that this was another one is entirely reasonable, until the true nature of the thing was revealed.
When did you know this? How did you find this out?
No it isn’t. It’s fucking stupid.
“Do my work for me”, you mean. You cited it. You link it.
You can’t cite the specific words because Obama did not make a connection to Benghazi. You are spreading something that is not true. Obama said Embassy. There is no Embassy around the world. Our Embassy in Cairo was attacked based upon the anger over the video.
So if you want people to look up what you are citing to falsify what Obama actually said, you need to read beyond the headline.. or perhaps read the full text yourself.
If you wish to try another, then let’s hope you provide the transcript.
Correction to my previous post:
You can’t cite the specific words because Obama did not make a connection to Benghazi. You are spreading something that is not true. Obama said Embassy. There is no Embassy in Benghazi. Our Embassy in Cairo was attacked based upon the anger over the video.]
Everything you wrote is now proven to be false.
Are you interested in accepting the truth as more information has become available and is getting transcribed and organized?
We know a lot more today than we did on the 12 thru 15th of May. So yes, we do know who made the change from ‘attacks’ to ‘demonstration’. It was Michael J. Morell, the Deputy Director of the CIA. He made that change prior to sending the proposed talking points to the White House.
That means the WHITE HOUSE DID NOT REQUEST IT and the STATE DEPT DID NOT REQUEST IT.
The Entire Benghazi right wing anti-Obama scandal narrative is truly falling apart.
The CIA would get the black eye if Republicans chose to follow the truth and investigate the CIA not the Administration.
YOu need to start where the CIA provided the following version of the talking point emails to the White House (9/14/12 04:42 PM):
[QUOTE Here is the text 20120914a0442 04:42 PM of the original CIA edited Email submitted only to Tommy Vietor and Ben Rhodes by the CIA. I have tried to transcribe from the original emails, If anyone has time to proof read these I would appreciate it. The third link below shows the original emails in searchable format.
ORIGINAL CIA revised draft of TALKING POINTS (9/14/12 04:42 PM):
See Link to Ibtimes for scroll of 100 originals released by the White House.
(Start) We believe based on currently available information that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex. This assessment may change as additional information is collected and analyzed and currently available information continues to be evaluated. On 10 September we warned of social media reports calling for a demonstration in front of the Embassy and that jihadists were threatening to break into the Embassy.
The crowd almost certainly was a mix of individuals from across many sectors of Libyan society. That being said, we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.
Initial press reporting linked the attack to Ansar al-Sharia. The group has since released a statement that its leadership did not order the attacks, but it did not deny that some of its members were involved.
The wide availability of weapons and experienced fighters in Libya almost certainly contribute to the lethality of the attacks.
The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al-Qa’ida in Benghazi and eastern Libya. These noted that since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador’s convoy. We cannot rule out the individuals has [sic]
previously surveilled the U.S. facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks.
We working with Libyan Authorities and intelligence partners in an effort to help bring justice those responsible for the deaths of US citizens. (End)
Credit much of the transcribing to the following links.
Newly Released Benghazi Emails Reveal Talking Points Timeline [FULL TEXT TRANSCRIPT] | IBTimes (see page 14 and 15 on the scroll of 100 email documents}
Page 21 (5:09 p.m.): A version of talking points is sent to the White House and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence at 5:09 p.m. This is the second draft of the talking points, when the reference to “attack” was changed to “demonstrations.”
Page 26 (6:21 p.m.): The White House suggests adding the word “Cairo” to the first bullet point.
Posted by NotfooooldbyW BB*
[/QUOTE]
We know a lot more today than we did on the 15th. So yes, we know who made the change from attacks to demonstration. It was Michael J. Morell, the Deputy Director of the CIA.
[QUOTE Here is the text 20120914a0442 04:42 PM of the original CIA edited Email submitted only to Tommy Vietor and Ben Rhodes by the CIA. I have tried to transcribe from the original emails, If anyone has time to proof read these I would appreciate it. The third link below shows the original emails in searchable format.
ORIGINAL CIA revised draft of TALKING POINTS (9/14/12 04:42 PM):
See Link to Ibtimes for scroll of 100 originals released by the White House.
(Start) We believe based on currently available information that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex. This assessment may change as additional information is collected and analyzed and currently available information continues to be evaluated. On 10 September we warned of social media reports calling for a demonstration in front of the Embassy and that jihadists were threatening to break into the Embassy.
The crowd almost certainly was a mix of individuals from across many sectors of Libyan society. That being said, we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.
Initial press reporting linked the attack to Ansar al-Sharia. The group has since released a statement that its leadership did not order the attacks, but it did not deny that some of its members were involved.
The wide availability of weapons and experienced fighters in Libya almost certainly contribute to the lethality of the attacks.
The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al-Qa’ida in Benghazi and eastern Libya. These noted that since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador’s convoy. We cannot rule out the individuals has [sic]
previously surveilled the U.S. facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks.
We working with Libyan Authorities and intelligence partners in an effort to help bring justice those responsible for the deaths of US citizens. (End)
Credit much of the transcribing to the following links.
Newly Released Benghazi Emails Reveal Talking Points Timeline [FULL TEXT TRANSCRIPT] | IBTimes (see page 14 and 15 on the scroll of 100 email documents}
Page 21 (5:09 p.m.): A version of talking points is sent to the White House and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence at 5:09 p.m. This is the second draft of the talking points, when the reference to “attack” was changed to “demonstrations.”
Page 26 (6:21 p.m.): The White House suggests adding the word “Cairo” to the first bullet point.
Posted by NotfooooldbyW BB*
[/QUOTE]