Skip to comments.Scrubbing the Truth from Benghazi ( The preparation of the Susan Rice Talking Points )
Posted on 05/11/2013 8:45:27 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Summaries of White House and State Department emails -- some of which were first published by Stephen F. Hayes of the Weekly Standard -- also contradict the White House version of events that led to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice misleading the public about the cause of the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. installation in Libya.
Where does this all lead?
(Excerpt) Read more at nationaljournal.com ...
Drip, drip, drip...
Yes...either there or the CIA. Certainly not the White House. The career people are always the most dangerous to the potential tyrants.
FTA: While Karl and Hayes did not disclose their sources, a hallmark of congressional investigations is to leak selected evidence to embarrass the sitting administration.
The money quote from the article. The only reason the public knows anything at all about what happened (according to the Journal), is because the Republicans are playing politics with a tragedy. This will be the meme going forward.
Petraeus’ silence is deeply disturbing.
I’m not as interested in who scrubbed information from the talking points as I am in WHO ADDED the Video Protest LIE to the talking points.
I have no respect for Petraeus. He’s deep into the establishment and has more loyalty to his personal position than he does to this country.
Thanks for posting the article.
Facts are important, and I am having difficulty finding one certain fact. I have scoured many sources, and I keep finding a disparity.
About half of the sources provide Nuland’s quote thusly:
These changes dont resolve all of my issues or those of my buildings leadership.
The other half provide it like this:
These changes dont resolve all of my issues or those of my building leadership.
The scrubbing issue is important because it is one of the most blatant lies Carney told last fall. But the video story is just as important.
That’s what has GOT to be scaring the living crap out of Obama and Hillary right now.
This scandal is huge and involves huge agencies...and when this bombshell got out, they knew very well that they are not being “protected” any more.
They are sitting ducks, with HUGE targets on their backs, with no cover other than threats, which are now proven powerless.
Blood is in the water. They must be terrified as they hide in their bunkers.
And this mental image brings me great joy.
P.S. The first report I read stated, “building leadership”.
I think the MEDIA and POLS are trying to say that the word “BUILDING” is being used as a noun.
I think it was being used as a verb.
NO ONE refers to their bosses as ‘building leadership’. In all the written history of the world, I doubt one can find an utterance of that phrase. You might say ‘departmental leadership’ or ‘office leadership’, but never ‘building’.
NOW.... if you were referring to your ‘budding career’ the phrase ‘building leadership’ would make sense in response to it being harmed by incidents in Benghazi.
The only people who would try to claim it meant the ‘leadership of the building’ are the same people who claimed Bin Laden was buried at sea because it’s a Muslim Custom.
P.P.S. (I apologize for not getting all my apples in one handbasket)
I THINK that the media has been changing it to “BUILDING’s” in an effort to conceal the true meaning. They think that someone may figure out what she meant, and so by replacing it with “building’s” (what’s the harm in doing a little editing, considering everything else about Benghazi has been rapaciously edited) which would make the word a possessive noun (which would passed unnoticed among the largely ignorant population) instead of an adverb.
I see it the same.
The group that edited/extracted a short version of the original 'film' and put it on Youtube.
It wasn't the guy they put in jail. However, if you know who's 'snitch' he was, that would lead you down the path.
He's testified twice so far and said that the CIA did not modify their own talking points.