James Clapper’s Office Made The Controversial Edits To Susan Rice’s Talking Points

[Wehrwolfen]

James Clapper’s Office Made The Controversial Edits To Susan Rice’s Talking Points​

Good Ole Jake gonna take one for the Boss?​

We’ve suspected this for months. Now people are saying it was indeed Clapper. Actually they’re saying it was his office — the Director of National Intelligence — and any of several people might have made the changes.

But I will stick with Clapper. He’s proven himself to be a perfect Obama appointee, by which I mean incompetent and eminently malleable in his claims according to Obama’s political needs. Furthermore, we are speaking here of the deaths of four Americans, including an ambassador. We are talking about talking points prepared by the CIA to be given to the US Ambassador for wide dissemination on television. And the US Ambassador was appearing on TV at the order of the White House (which I imagine means the President).

As very senior people are involved on all ends of this, I doubt very much the edit job was done by a convenient subordinate. I would imagine another principal– Clapper himself — made the edits. Either way, Clapper is confirmed to have reviewed the edits, at the very least.

As I’ve been saying, these talking points are negotiated. It is not the case that the CIA just hands out talking points and the Administration accepts them without challenge. Everything Bush wanted to say about Iraq or Al Qaeda was subject to a discussion between his people and the CIA about what the CIA would be willing to disclose and also what they would be willing to sign their names to, as the official intelligence finding of the United States.

The White House wanted the terrorism angle all but written out of the report, and Clapper was the man who did the editing, and then the CIA, to its great dishonor, signed off on this lie.

Read more:
<font color="red">Sources: James Clapper's Office Made The Controversial Edits To Susan Rice's Talking Points</font>

 

[jillian]

And?

 

[Wehrwolfen]

And?

to the Jake Clapper supposedly did this out of his own convictions? Hmm.... If any one is cockoo, I'd say take a close look into the mirror nearest you. Someone ordered the change of those intelligence report and Oblamer is the is the CIC. I'm surprised that Axlrod's didn't appear.

 

[Wehrwolfen]

CBS News has learned that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) cut specific references to "al Qaeda" and "terrorism" from the unclassified talking points given to Ambassador Susan Rice on the Benghazi consulate attack - with the agreement of the CIA and FBI. The White House or State Department did not make those changes.
There has been considerable discussion about who made the changes to the talking points that Rice stuck to in her television appearances on Sept. 16 (video), five days after the attack that killed American Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens, and three other U.S. nationals.

However, an intelligence source tells CBS News correspondent Margaret Brennan the links to al Qaeda were deemed too "tenuous" to make public, because there was not strong confidence in the person providing the intelligence. CIA Director David Petraeus, however, told Congress he agreed to release the information -- the reference to al Qaeda -- in an early draft of the talking points, which were also distributed to select lawmakers.​

An intelligence source says the talking points were passed from the CIA to the DNI, where the substantive edits were made, and then to FBI, which made more edits as part of "standard procedure."

The head of the DNI is James Clapper, an Obama appointee. He ultimately did review the points, before they were given to Ambassador Rice and members of the House intelligence committee on Sept. 14. They were compiled the day before.

Brennan says her source wouldn't confirm who in the agency suggested the final edits which were signed off on by all intelligence agencies.​

 

[BreezeWood]

the CIA still does not know who was responsible to date.

if it were a planed terrorist attack where was the announcement to the media and reason for attacking the consulate -

al Qaeda would want their responsibility Known publicly to claim their victory over the West, it only makes sense that it was a spontaneous attack.

 

[Rozman]

Who decided to make it all about the video...
Did she just pull it out of her ass?
Did she take the next possible thing.

The guy that did the video is in jail because of her for some interesting violation
of his probation...

We are still in the dark here as to what really happened.

 

[asaratis]

the CIA still does not know who was responsible to date.

if it were a planed terrorist attack where was the announcement to the media and reason for attacking the consulate -

al Qaeda would want their responsibility Known publicly to claim their victory over the West, it only makes sense that it was a spontaneous attack.

Get fucking serious! An Al Qaeda affiliated group did claim responsibility. Obama just wanted us all to think it was because a video pissed of some raghead Muslims. That gets him off the hook for not protecting this country from terrorist attacks.

Obama failed!

Obama is unfit to be our CIC....

Fuck Obama!

 

[francoHFW]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[del]

you know the election's over, right?

 

[Rozman]

Right and we are still pushing for the truth...
We owe it to the people who died and their families..

 

[Sallow]

the CIA still does not know who was responsible to date.

if it were a planed terrorist attack where was the announcement to the media and reason for attacking the consulate -

al Qaeda would want their responsibility Known publicly to claim their victory over the West, it only makes sense that it was a spontaneous attack.

Get fucking serious! An Al Qaeda affiliated group did claim responsibility. Obama just wanted us all to think it was because a video pissed of some raghead Muslims. That gets him off the hook for not protecting this country from terrorist attacks.

Obama failed!

Obama is unfit to be our CIC....

Fuck Obama!

Ah..so you voted Kerry after 9/11/2001?

Good to know.

 

[Sallow]

Right and we are still pushing for the truth...
We owe it to the people who died and their families..

You voted for Kerry too?

Sheesh.

Lots of Kerry supporters here.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

you know the election's over, right?

So that means we should just forget about all the crap the moron in chief pulled in the past?
I'm surprised you're smart enough to breath....

 

[mikegriffith1]

Can you imagine how the media and the Dems would have reacted if in 2006 the American ambassador in Iraq and three Americans who were with him had been killed in a coordinated attack by Al Qaeda in Iraq and the Bush people had spent two weeks denying that it was an Al Qaeda attack and instead had said it was a spontaneous protest to some obscure YouTube video?

There would have been a veritable firestorm from the media and the Dems, not to mention calls for a thorough investigation and full disclosure of who knew what when--and rightfully so.

But since the Benghazi attack happened on Obama's watch, their attitude is "There's nothing to see here, so just move on."

 

[Clementine]

the CIA still does not know who was responsible to date.

if it were a planed terrorist attack where was the announcement to the media and reason for attacking the consulate -

al Qaeda would want their responsibility Known publicly to claim their victory over the West, it only makes sense that it was a spontaneous attack.

Facts dispute your theory. There were 4 previous attacks and in one, a big hole was blown open in the gate surrounding the consulate. Pretty convenient considering it was large enough for a small army to get through and that is what happened.

Spontaneous demonstrators would not be carrying so many weapons and explosives. They were extremely organized and the attack went off without a hitch. They even knew that the ambassador was enroute to a safe house. This was not a bunch of angry people getting out of hand. This was a group who had a lot of knowledge about the consulate and the whereabouts of the ambassador. And they came prepared and without fear of immediate retaliation from our people. That is the real scandal here.

There is also no explanation being offered as to why the calls for help before and during the attacks went unanswered. We didn't need to know who was attacking our people or why in order to step in and protect them. Yet, orders were given to stand down and those who intended to disobey those orders were dealt with harshly. Ask General Ham's replacement why he so quickly arrested the general and relieved him of his duties and by whose order he did so. It was Obama who chose him as Ham's replacement and it sure sounds like a thank you for a job well done. That job being to ensure that the general did not properly respond to the cries for help from the victims of the attack. The Marines were also told to stand down, yet one was somehow led to believe he had backup when he painted a target. He lost his life over that.

I don't buy that so many people were incompetent or ignorant of what was happening for months in the region. It looks like a coordinated effort to allow the attacks and there was a cover up after the fact.

This can't be explained away. There were deliberate efforts to keep this quiet and the list of people thrown under the bus grows daily. It wasn't low level people handling this whole matter, but we are seeing how expendable these people are while the administration is being let off the hook by those who refuse to ask the tough questions. I suspect that some are afraid of the answers. And they should be.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Truly, the fact that liberals apparently have no interest in finding out the whole truth about the death of those four Americans is sad, very sad. They're more concerned with protecting Obama's image than they are with finding out the truth and with getting some justice and closure for the families of those who were killed.

 

[RosieS]

the CIA still does not know who was responsible to date.

if it were a planed terrorist attack where was the announcement to the media and reason for attacking the consulate -

al Qaeda would want their responsibility Known publicly to claim their victory over the West, it only makes sense that it was a spontaneous attack.

Facts dispute your theory. There were 4 previous attacks and in one, a big hole was blown open in the gate surrounding the consulate. Pretty convenient considering it was large enough for a small army to get through and that is what happened.

Spontaneous demonstrators would not be carrying so many weapons and explosives. They were extremely organized and the attack went off without a hitch. They even knew that the ambassador was enroute to a safe house. This was not a bunch of angry people getting out of hand. This was a group who had a lot of knowledge about the consulate and the whereabouts of the ambassador. And they came prepared and without fear of immediate retaliation from our people. That is the real scandal here.

There is also no explanation being offered as to why the calls for help before and during the attacks went unanswered. We didn't need to know who was attacking our people or why in order to step in and protect them. Yet, orders were given to stand down and those who intended to disobey those orders were dealt with harshly. Ask General Ham's replacement why he so quickly arrested the general and relieved him of his duties and by whose order he did so. It was Obama who chose him as Ham's replacement and it sure sounds like a thank you for a job well done. That job being to ensure that the general did not properly respond to the cries for help from the victims of the attack. The Marines were also told to stand down, yet one was somehow led to believe he had backup when he painted a target. He lost his life over that.

I don't buy that so many people were incompetent or ignorant of what was happening for months in the region. It looks like a coordinated effort to allow the attacks and there was a cover up after the fact.

This can't be explained away. There were deliberate efforts to keep this quiet and the list of people thrown under the bus grows daily. It wasn't low level people handling this whole matter, but we are seeing how expendable these people are while the administration is being let off the hook by those who refuse to ask the tough questions. I suspect that some are afraid of the answers. And they should be.

OIC. And yet you could not care less what kind of stupiidity drips from Marco Rubio's lips.

Got it.

Regards from Rosie

 

[whitehall]

Democrat icon Harry Truman is credited with the infamous quote "the buck stops here". It is a play on the old saying "pass the buck" which means evade responsibility. It was a good political slogan but Truman didn't believe in it either. Amazingly Obama picked up the slogan and immediately evaded responsibility for just about everything including Benghazi. His dirty tricks squad dug up enough dirt on the CIA chief to discredit him and the liberal media circled the wagons as usual.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Del said it was the video why can't we let it go at that. It's not like anyone died from it

 

[Zoom-boing]

Can you imagine how the media and the Dems would have reacted if in 2006 the American ambassador in Iraq and three Americans who were with him had been killed in a coordinated attack by Al Qaeda in Iraq and the Bush people had spent two weeks denying that it was an Al Qaeda attack and instead had said it was a spontaneous protest to some obscure YouTube video?

There would have been a veritable firestorm from the media and the Dems, not to mention calls for a thorough investigation and full disclosure of who knew what when--and rightfully so.

But since the Benghazi attack happened on Obama's watch, their attitude is "There's nothing to see here, so just move on."

Had this happened on Bush's watch the Dems and the media would have gone nuke-lee-er.