Posted on 05/15/2013 5:47:08 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Jake Tapper has all of them in PDF form. Click the link and let’s start crowdsourcing. This one’s the standout so far:
“FBI says AQ (not AQIM) was involved and they are pursuing that theory.” AQIM is “Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb,” a.k.a. the group’s north African offshoot. The FBI evidently had reason to believe — and still does — that members of Al Qaeda from outside the region were involved in the attack. That didn’t make it into the final version of the talking points on September 14.
Via John Nolte and Stephen Hayes, another one. Remember when Jay Carney said in November that a “single adjustment” had been made to the initial talking points? Nope:
“Major reservations.” The very next e-mail (page 46), addressed to State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland, says that the FBI had no major concerns with the talking points. It was State who objected — specifically to the paragraph in the original talking points noting that the CIA had warned of jihadi activity before, a fact already reported by Hayes in the Weekly Standard:
Here, a bit later in the evening (page 63), is the CIA’s big scrub in response to Nuland’s concerns. The references to Al Qaeda and previous warnings by the CIA in paragraph four are gone:
Another State Department deputy, David Adams, complained earlier in the evening (page 40) that that fourth paragraph “will read to members like we had been repeatedly warned.” But they had been repeatedly warned: That was the whole point of the initial Benghazi testimony last year from Eric Nordstrom, culminating in his claim that the “Taliban is on the inside of the building” at State because they wouldn’t listen to repeated requests for more security. On the day he died, Stevens sent a cable to State emphasizing his concerns about “growing problems with security” in Benghazi. O’s critics have chased a thousand different strands of this story, but that remains the most egregious element of it. State’s diplomatic team in Libya begged them for more security and were refused. And after it was over, Nuland and Adams fretted that the public might conclude they hadn’t done enough to protect their troops if the talking points were left as is. Heaven forbid.
When push comes to shove, I think Dave Weigel’s right about tonight’s document dump. It doesn’t tell us much that Steve Hayes hadn’t already told us. The biggest point in the administration’s favor remains the fact that, from the beginning, the CIA itself erroneously thought the attack was the product of a spontaneous protest — which, of course, doesn’t justify the scrubbing of the rest of the document at State’s behest. Just one note in parting, though: Why do the e-mails start on September 14? There’d been three days of government verbiage, some of it blaming the Mohammed video, before this. When do we get those e-mails?
Update: Ace is needling me on Twitter for assuming that the “spontaneous protest” talking point was part of the CIA’s assessment from the very beginning when we’re still missing three days of interagency communications to confirm that. Fair enough.
fyi
Where does he get that info? I don't think this is true.
And I don't agree with him either.
Don't have a clue ....unless he is saying that with what he sees in these specific emails.
Meanwhile they are absolutely loosing it over at the White Hut. They drop a crap load of documents then issue a press release trying to say the emails didn’t say what they said.
I wonder if anyone suggested to Victoria Nuland, that she start wearing a foot ball helmet, and body armor in case she is hold off to be thrown under a buss.
And it is a very BIG government.
Four Americans were murdered because estrogen and emasculation dominates our government. None of us are safe with these pansies in charge. If I were China, Russia, Iran or North Korea, now’s just as good a time as any to make a move on us. We are gutless.
And Patreus, Clinton and Pannetta have all left their posts. Maybe they knew something big was going to happen.
Proves Jay Carney is a liar...how long till he is gone. Also proves that the White House and the State Dept drove EDITS of the talking points, despite Obama’s and Hillary’s it was CIA driven.
So the early talking points indicated that ansar al-sharia was thought responsible, but their leadership released a statement saying they did not order the attack, and they would not deny their members were involved.
Talking points get modified and that portion of the talking points is taking out of the final copy.
President Obama said that the talking points given to Rice “pretty much matched” the assessments of the situation that he was receiving at the time.
But during the presidential debate he indicated that they were not sure who was responsible. They had reports that ansar al sharia was responsible, but then they said they were no involved.
Snip: 'No mention of the cable to Cairo, either?' Petraeus wrote after receiving Morell’s edited version, developed after an intense back-and-forth among Obama administration officials.
'Frankly, I’d just as soon not use this, then.'
Sadly. I cannot disagree with your statements. It taint going well at all. Puttie watches with amusement.
Not sure if it was presidential debate or not, but I remember watching a video with President Obama indicating that they were not sure who was responsible. That ansar al-sharia claimed responsibility then said they did not order the attack.
The point is, this was in the early drafts of the talking points and then taken out of the later drafts. Yet the president referenced them in the video.
Then he goes on to say that the talking points given to Rice (the final version) “pretty much matched” the assessments of the situation that he was receiving at the time.
How could that be?
“How could that be?”
All that obama had to do was lie about it... which is what he always does... his entire life is a lie... that is how.
LLS
Not sure that is a document dump but that does not mean there is no good stuff in there. See document dump in Class Action starring Gene Hackman, Fred Thompson.
It is interesting. Initial talking points had info that Obama repeated. Later talking points scrubbed that info. Then he says the talking points provided to Rice pretty much represent what he had available.
It is also noted that on September 28: The Office of the Director of National Intelligence takes responsibility for the intelligence community’s claim, repeated by Rice, that the Benghazi attack was launched in response to the protests against the anti-Muslim video in Cairo.
What is interesting there is that it is not in the final version of the talking points as issued. Sp why take responsibility for something that you did not issue?
They have lied so much that it is impossible for them to rectify any of it.
LLS
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.