Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Sources: Office of the DNI cut "al Qaeda" reference from Benghazi talking points, and CIA, FBI signed off - CBS News
Another source, a senior U.S. official familiar with the drafting of the talking points, tells CBS News the "controversy this word choice has caused came as a surprise."
"The points were not, as has been insinuated by some, edited to minimize the role of extremists, diminish terrorist affiliations, or play down that this was an attack," the official tells CBS News, adding that there were "legitimate intelligence and legal issues to consider, as is almost always the case when explaining classified assessments publicly."
"Most people understand that saying 'extremists' were involved in a direct assault on the mission isn't shying away from the idea of terrorist involvement," added the official. "Because of the various elements involved in the attack, the term extremist was meant to capture the range of participants."
Several militant groups have been eyed as likely culprits, including the Islamic extremist militia Ansar al Sharia, which was based in Eastern Libya and enjoyed huge power in Benghazi before the attack. Gen. Carter Ham, chief of the U.S. Africa Command, said recently that there were "linkages" between al Qaeda and some of the people who attacked the consulate and the CIA annex about a mile away.
Maybe you can say we left out Al Queda for intelligence purposes, but that doesn't explain why we didn't call it a terrorist attack. There is no reason, other than political, to not call it a terrorist attack. The fact that an Obama appointee was the one to change the talking points makes it that more suspicious.
An obvious reason is that an ambassador and 3 others died because help was denied. Admitting that you were watching it in real time and knew it was a terrorist attack looks really bad......especially if it is right before an election. Sending out the lacky to say it was because of a youtube video gives you the ability to say you didn't realize it was a terrorist atack. Also, the ability to say that we'll look into it and get back to you.......much later. The lemmings who reelected Obama are perfectly happy swallowing the company line.
We may as well throw logistics and rational thinking out the window. The Agenda of those who claim that Rice or the White House lied is not to try to understand the facts or take steps that would prevent this from happening again. Their Agenda is to find a "smoking gun." Watergate and the last election is still haunting them. But they are and will be frustrated by facts that do not support their delusional claims.
Nuff Said...
ah yes, that must be it, just couldn't be looking into if it was legitimate cover up that would be WORSE than Watergate..
we know they are ALL out to get the poor poor Dear Leader and their fweelings are still hurting from losing the election.
She read what she was given, Nut Case...She did not "Lie" as many in the GOP said. Get over it...YOU LOST!
Official: Changes to Benghazi talking points made by intel community CNN Security Clearance - CNN.com Blogs
Now, will the RW loons who see this is more than it is SHUT UP!
Maybe you can say we left out Al Queda for intelligence purposes, but that doesn't explain why we didn't call it a terrorist attack. There is no reason, other than political, to not call it a terrorist attack. The fact that an Obama appointee was the one to change the talking points makes it that more suspicious.
An obvious reason is that an ambassador and 3 others died because help was denied. Admitting that you were watching it in real time and knew it was a terrorist attack looks really bad......especially if it is right before an election. Sending out the lacky to say it was because of a youtube video gives you the ability to say you didn't realize it was a terrorist atack. Also, the ability to say that we'll look into it and get back to you.......much later. The lemmings who reelected Obama are perfectly happy swallowing the company line.
Yup, The idiots who voted him in for the second time sure don't want anything negative said about that fuck and they sure don't give a rats ass about four dead Americans. Anything so that fuck gets his second term.
If anyone thinks that fuck gives a shit about those dead Americans believe me he doesn't. Why should he??
He's got his second term and he doesn't need anyone to vote for him again. He could care less. Fuck that he is.
We may as well throw logistics and rational thinking out the window. The Agenda of those who claim that Rice or the White House lied is not to try to understand the facts or take steps that would prevent this from happening again. Their Agenda is to find a "smoking gun." Watergate and the last election is still haunting them. But they are and will be frustrated by facts that do not support their delusional claims.
Nuff Said...
ah yes, that must be it, just couldn't be looking into if it was legitimate cover up that would be WORSE than Watergate..
we know they are ALL out to get the poor poor Dear Leader and their fweelings are still hurting from losing the election.
Push the smoke away and if there is no gun--that is good. That is what I want.
eh--'Leading from behind'---doesn't have to be extreme. If you topple a brutal dictator in Libya isn't it pragmatic to believe that there will be months of civil unrest of some kind? If you 'helped' bring the dictator down, wouldn't you then know that you need to provide security to those representing your interests/organization, country? I would think so.
The most I have heard about the Benghazi consulate since Sept 11---now 'closed', a search has begun for a replacement and good luck with that. FBI finally was able to enter Libya a few weeks ago. I am extremely annoyed that the special forces/Marines/immediate terrorist response team stationed in Italy weren't allowed to go in. Sloppy--just sloppy. That is all I can think.
She read what she was given, Nut Case...She did not "Lie" as many in the GOP said. Get over it...YOU LOST!
I for one never said she lied, I am sure she believed what she was told. Just like those the left accuse of lying about Iraq, except Colin Powell.
The question is why did they continue to tell her what is not true well after everyone knew otherwise. What riots might have been sparked because the POTUS made this about a video? Words have consequence, except with this adminstration.
Maybe you delusional RW loons should read what the link said:
The unclassified talking points were first developed by the CIA at the request of the House Intelligence Committee, whose members wanted to know what they could say publicly about the Benghazi attack.
Benghazi talking points omitted link to al Qaeda
The initial version included information linking individuals involved in the attack to al Qaeda, according to a senior U.S. official familiar with the drafting of the talking points. But when the document was sent to the rest of the intelligence community for review, there was a decision to change "al Qaeda" to "extremists." The official said the change was made for legitimate intelligence and legal reasons, not for political purposes.
"First, the information about individuals linked to al Qaeda was derived from classified sources," the official said. "Second, when links were so tenuous - as they still are - it makes sense to be cautious before pointing fingers so you don't set off a chain of circular and self-reinforcing assumptions. Third, it is important to be careful not to prejudice a criminal investigation in its early stages."
The talking points came from the CIA....NOT THE WHITE HOUSE. No one was told to lie. Rice was reading the Talking Points...HER FRIGIN JOB!
ah yes, that must be it, just couldn't be looking into if it was legitimate cover up that would be WORSE than Watergate..
we know they are ALL out to get the poor poor Dear Leader and their fweelings are still hurting from losing the election.
Push the smoke away and if there is no gun--that is good. That is what I want.
eh--'Leading from behind'---doesn't have to be extreme. If you topple a brutal dictator in Libya isn't it pragmatic to believe that there will be months of civil unrest of some kind? If you 'helped' bring the dictator down, wouldn't you then know that you need to provide security to those representing your interests/organization, country? I would think so.
The most I have heard about the Benghazi consulate since Sept 11---now 'closed', a search has begun for a replacement and good luck with that. FBI finally was able to enter Libya a few weeks ago. I am extremely annoyed that the special forces/Marines/immediate terrorist response team stationed in Italy weren't allowed to go in. Sloppy--just sloppy. That is all I can think.
Oh I think theres a gun.
Complete incompetence from Barry's State Department and that pack of boobs he surrounds himself with.
As CIC Barry could have ordered those men saved. From all I've read they had teams ready to go. Those men fought a seven hour gun battle. Seven hours is a long time. Time enough to get help there. It simply wasn't done. He could have also ordered his State Department to beef up security at the consulate long before this happened. That wasn't done either.
One big clusterfuck that cost four men their lives. Courtesey of Barry and his pack of incompetant boobs.
Of course fuck off in the WH had no problem getting to his fundraiser in Vegas.
Maybe you delusional RW loons should read what the link said:
The unclassified talking points were first developed by the CIA at the request of the House Intelligence Committee, whose members wanted to know what they could say publicly about the Benghazi attack.
Benghazi talking points omitted link to al Qaeda
The initial version included information linking individuals involved in the attack to al Qaeda, according to a senior U.S. official familiar with the drafting of the talking points. But when the document was sent to the rest of the intelligence community for review, there was a decision to change "al Qaeda" to "extremists." The official said the change was made for legitimate intelligence and legal reasons, not for political purposes.
"First, the information about individuals linked to al Qaeda was derived from classified sources," the official said. "Second, when links were so tenuous - as they still are - it makes sense to be cautious before pointing fingers so you don't set off a chain of circular and self-reinforcing assumptions. Third, it is important to be careful not to prejudice a criminal investigation in its early stages."
The talking points came from the CIA....NOT THE WHITE HOUSE. No one was told to lie. Rice was reading the Talking Points...HER FRIGIN JOB!
The CIA gave their assessment of the situation. That assessment was changed down the line to fit the WH's narrative and that is what the WH sent Rice out to say. But you knew that.
We may as well throw logistics and rational thinking out the window. The Agenda of those who claim that Rice or the White House lied is not to try to understand the facts or take steps that would prevent this from happening again. Their Agenda is to find a "smoking gun." Watergate and the last election is still haunting them. But they are and will be frustrated by facts that do not support their delusional claims.
Nuff Said...
ah yes, that must be it, just couldn't be looking into if it was legitimate cover up that would be WORSE than Watergate..
we know they are ALL out to get the poor poor Dear Leader and their fweelings are still hurting from losing the election.
Push the smoke away and if there is no gun--that is good. That is what I want.
eh--'Leading from behind'---doesn't have to be extreme. If you topple a brutal dictator in Libya isn't it pragmatic to believe that there will be months of civil unrest of some kind? If you 'helped' bring the dictator down, wouldn't you then know that you need to provide security to those representing your interests/organization, country? I would think so.
The most I have heard about the Benghazi consulate since Sept 11---now 'closed', a search has begun for a replacement and good luck with that. FBI finally was able to enter Libya a few weeks ago. I am extremely annoyed that the special forces/Marines/immediate terrorist response team stationed in Italy weren't allowed to go in. Sloppy--just sloppy. That is all I can think.
Push the smoke away and if there is no gun--that is good. That is what I want.
eh--'Leading from behind'---doesn't have to be extreme. If you topple a brutal dictator in Libya isn't it pragmatic to believe that there will be months of civil unrest of some kind? If you 'helped' bring the dictator down, wouldn't you then know that you need to provide security to those representing your interests/organization, country? I would think so.
The most I have heard about the Benghazi consulate since Sept 11---now 'closed', a search has begun for a replacement and good luck with that. FBI finally was able to enter Libya a few weeks ago. I am extremely annoyed that the special forces/Marines/immediate terrorist response team stationed in Italy weren't allowed to go in. Sloppy--just sloppy. That is all I can think.
Oh I think theres a gun.
Complete incompetence from Barry's State Department and that pack of boobs he surrounds himself with.
As CIC Barry could have ordered those men saved. From all I've read they had teams ready to go. Those men fought a seven hour gun battle. Seven hours is a long time. Time enough to get help there. It simply wasn't done. He could have also ordered his State Department to beef up security at the consulate long before this happened. That wasn't done either.
One big clusterfuck that cost four men their lives. Courtesey of Barry and his pack of incompetant boobs.
Of course fuck off in the WH had no problem getting to his fundraiser in Vegas.
Yep..getting a tactical mission together to infiltrate a heavily populated city and fend off militants in a foreign country is really freakin easy.
Unlike the tough task of using a 750 billion a year military to fend off some guys with box cutters attacking the largest city in the US with Hijacked Airplanes they had in the skies for 2 hours.
Gosh..how do you do it Holmes!
ah yes, that must be it, just couldn't be looking into if it was legitimate cover up that would be WORSE than Watergate..
we know they are ALL out to get the poor poor Dear Leader and their fweelings are still hurting from losing the election.
Push the smoke away and if there is no gun--that is good. That is what I want.
eh--'Leading from behind'---doesn't have to be extreme. If you topple a brutal dictator in Libya isn't it pragmatic to believe that there will be months of civil unrest of some kind? If you 'helped' bring the dictator down, wouldn't you then know that you need to provide security to those representing your interests/organization, country? I would think so.
The most I have heard about the Benghazi consulate since Sept 11---now 'closed', a search has begun for a replacement and good luck with that. FBI finally was able to enter Libya a few weeks ago. I am extremely annoyed that the special forces/Marines/immediate terrorist response team stationed in Italy weren't allowed to go in. Sloppy--just sloppy. That is all I can think.
No one was suppose to know he was there in the first place. That is where the real fuck up is.
Oh I think theres a gun.
Complete incompetence from Barry's State Department and that pack of boobs he surrounds himself with.
As CIC Barry could have ordered those men saved. From all I've read they had teams ready to go. Those men fought a seven hour gun battle. Seven hours is a long time. Time enough to get help there. It simply wasn't done. He could have also ordered his State Department to beef up security at the consulate long before this happened. That wasn't done either.
One big clusterfuck that cost four men their lives. Courtesey of Barry and his pack of incompetant boobs.
Of course fuck off in the WH had no problem getting to his fundraiser in Vegas.
Yep..getting a tactical mission together to infiltrate a heavily populated city and fend off militants in a foreign country is really freakin easy.
Unlike the tough task of using a 750 billion a year military to fend off some guys with box cutters attacking the largest city in the US with Hijacked Airplanes they had in the skies for 2 hours.
Gosh..how do you do it Holmes!
Your a fucking idiot.
Perhaps Clinton should have acted on the intelligence he gave Bush. You know. Shut the whole country down on vague warnings. Yeah. That would have worked well. I'm sure Billy boy is thanking God on his hands and knees every day that the attack came 8 months after he left office. Oh and lets not forget. He could have taken out UBL several times before 9-11 ever happened.
From all I've read they had teams ready to go to Benghazi until they got the Stand Down order. They also had predators on site watching.
Haven't you wondered why General Hamm got relieved. I'm sure it was his time to go. Hell. I've got swamp land I'll sell ya down here in Florida.
Maybe you delusional RW loons should read what the link said:
The unclassified talking points were first developed by the CIA at the request of the House Intelligence Committee, whose members wanted to know what they could say publicly about the Benghazi attack.
Benghazi talking points omitted link to al Qaeda
The initial version included information linking individuals involved in the attack to al Qaeda, according to a senior U.S. official familiar with the drafting of the talking points. But when the document was sent to the rest of the intelligence community for review, there was a decision to change "al Qaeda" to "extremists." The official said the change was made for legitimate intelligence and legal reasons, not for political purposes.
"First, the information about individuals linked to al Qaeda was derived from classified sources," the official said. "Second, when links were so tenuous - as they still are - it makes sense to be cautious before pointing fingers so you don't set off a chain of circular and self-reinforcing assumptions. Third, it is important to be careful not to prejudice a criminal investigation in its early stages."
The talking points came from the CIA....NOT THE WHITE HOUSE. No one was told to lie. Rice was reading the Talking Points...HER FRIGIN JOB!
The CIA gave their assessment of the situation. That assessment was changed down the line to fit the WH's narrative and that is what the WH sent Rice out to say. But you knew that.
Welcome to the dark side. Glad to see that you agree there is a cover up.Official: Changes to Benghazi talking points made by intel community CNN Security Clearance - CNN.com Blogs
Now, will the RW loons who see this is more than it is SHUT UP!
Maybe you delusional RW loons should read what the link said:
The talking points came from the CIA....NOT THE WHITE HOUSE. No one was told to lie. Rice was reading the Talking Points...HER FRIGIN JOB!
The CIA gave their assessment of the situation. That assessment was changed down the line to fit the WH's narrative and that is what the WH sent Rice out to say. But you knew that.
The WH did not change the talking points. The Intel community changed them for reasons of security and possible prosecutions in the future. But you know that...just keep parrotting GOP Talking Points...as clueless as they are.
Maybe you delusional RW loons should read what the link said:
The talking points came from the CIA....NOT THE WHITE HOUSE. No one was told to lie. Rice was reading the Talking Points...HER FRIGIN JOB!
The CIA gave their assessment of the situation. That assessment was changed down the line to fit the WH's narrative and that is what the WH sent Rice out to say. But you knew that.
The WH did not change the talking points. The Intel community changed them for reasons of security and possible prosecutions in the future. But you know that...just keep parrotting GOP Talking Points...as clueless as they are.
She read what she was given, Nut Case...She did not "Lie" as many in the GOP said. Get over it...YOU LOST!
I for one never said she lied, I am sure she believed what she was told. Just like those the left accuse of lying about Iraq, except Colin Powell.
The question is why did they continue to tell her what is not true well after everyone knew otherwise. What riots might have been sparked because the POTUS made this about a video? Words have consequence, except with this adminstration.
