Next Stage In Scandal: White House Claims They Didn’t Edit Benghazi Talking Points

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Wehrwolfen, Nov 19, 2012.

  1. Wehrwolfen
    Offline

    Wehrwolfen Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2012
    Messages:
    2,752
    Thanks Received:
    338
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +339
    Next Stage In Scandal: White House Claims They Didn’t Edit Benghazi Talking Points​



    So who is lying? Could it be Axelrod?​

    Rob Port @ Say Anything:


    Earlier this week David Petraeus told Congress that talking points the CIA issued in the aftermath of the Benghazi attack were edited to exclude references to al-Qaeda involvement. UN Ambassador Susan Rice, in the days after the attack, used talking points in media appearances which made no reference to a planned terrorist attack. She further stated that “the currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo.”

    In other words, the attack wasn’t an act of terrorism planned and executed by terrorists but rather a protest of a YouTube clip which spiraled out of control.

    So who edited the report, the “talking points,” produced by the CIA and approved by the nation’s intelligence agencies? The Obama administration is saying it wasn’t them:


    The White House yesterday denied it edited talking points about the terrorist attack that killed the American ambassador to Libya — contradicting remarks made a day earlier by disgraced ex-CIA chief David Petraeus.

    “The only edit that was made by the White House and also by the State Department was to change the word ‘consulate’ to the word ‘diplomatic facility,’ since the facility in Benghazi was not formally a consulate,” Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes told reporters aboard Air Force One.

    “Other than that, we were guided by the points that were provided by the intelligence community. So I can’t speak to any other edits that may have been made.”

    This leaves us with the following choices:

    1) Petraeus is lying.

    2) The Obama administration is lying.

    3) Neither is lying, and some other intermediary changed the report.

    That last is hard to believe as you’d expect there to be a verifiable chain of who all handled this information. There just can’t be that many people who are allowed to access and edit this sort of information. If not, we’re apparently to believe that the Obama administration is running off to the media spouting talking points edited, from the time they were produced by the intelligence community, by some unknown entity.

    [excerpt]

    Read more:
    Say Anything White House Claims They Didn't Edit Benghazi Talking Points » Say Anything
     
  2. Claudette
    Offline

    Claudette Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    Messages:
    19,558
    Thanks Received:
    3,009
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +7,628
    I think we all know who is lying and it ain't Petraeus.

    He's out so why the hell would he lie??

    Of course if anyone thinks that fuck in the WH or that pack of boobs he surrounds himself with give a shit about those four dead Americans they are sadly deluded.

    He won. Anyone who cares should get in the back of the bus and STFU.
     
  3. Care4all
    Offline

    Care4all Warrior Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2007
    Messages:
    32,718
    Thanks Received:
    6,610
    Trophy Points:
    1,170
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +11,049
    Oh what utter partisan bullcrud.... do you right wingers ever stop lying? ever?

    Is this your pass to Heaven, lying ALL the time? You are calling the whitehouse liars yet it is YOU and ALL the right wing propaganda machine LYING once again....

    Are you ever going to stop being fooled by your beloved right wing trash media? Ever?

    How many times will it take being fooled by them or lead by them in to the wrong direction?

    The white house DID NOT change the intelligence reports, THAT'S A FACT JACK. And Petrayus said he did not change them but that the intelligence agencies DID...he did not know which intelligence agency changed them, but that they were NOT changed for ANY POLITICAL REASON.

    Yet you still blather on with your silly, lying talking points.

    The paper trail SHOWS THE WHITE HOUSE did not make the changes to the unclassified report that susan Rice had to use. PERIOD.

    So once again, you are lying.

    But that is what you've been taught, isn't it? Lying while you accuse others of lying..... Rush and Fox et al....taught you well....

    You really think Obama would have told your ilk to "Bring it on" if he had changed them....? Really?

    You've been played a fool....
     
  4. depotoo
    Offline

    depotoo Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2012
    Messages:
    14,398
    Thanks Received:
    2,693
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +6,416
    notice the play of words there? The only edit, yet 'we were guided by the points that were provided'.
    Guided - To serve as a guide
    Guide - a. One who shows the way by leading, directing, or advising.
    Sounds to me like they really did revise it, using the CIA points they wished to use as just a guide as to what they might say, as they took it under advisement. Pretty spiffy way of hoping others don't see they are speaking out of both sides of their mouths.
     
  5. mudwhistle
    Offline

    mudwhistle Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2009
    Messages:
    65,218
    Thanks Received:
    11,922
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Wetwang With Fimber, Yorkshire
    Ratings:
    +26,179
    The problem is nobody but the White House has the whole paper-trail and they're not giving it to investigators.

    Obama runs to the cameras to take credit when something positive happens but when something bad happens it's like trying to find the missing-link trying to discover what really happened. A wall of silence greets anyone who wants to discover the truth.

    And I think Obama is capable of just about anything. Often times he's caught doing something and then giving a speech shortly afterwards accusing the opposition of it.

    But this is what you voted for.........4 more fucken years of this happy horseshit.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  6. Freewill
    Offline

    Freewill Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2011
    Messages:
    27,128
    Thanks Received:
    4,369
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +12,969
    So your contention is that the head of the CIA does not have daily briefings with the POTUS or at least his administration?

    Your contention is that the WH was oblivious to it being a planned attack when the rest of the country already knew? It was so freakin obvious I don't think anyone had any doubt.

    So the real question is, why did they push a false story so long and so hard? That they did can not be denied intelligently.
     
  7. Freewill
    Offline

    Freewill Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2011
    Messages:
    27,128
    Thanks Received:
    4,369
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +12,969
    Sigh, once again the propaganda machine of the liberal left MSM is winning. They have us focused on whom knew what when instead of what lead up to the deaths of our men. Really cleaver how they manipulate the story line away from the real issue.
     
  8. Claudette
    Offline

    Claudette Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    Messages:
    19,558
    Thanks Received:
    3,009
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +7,628
    Partisan bulls shit huh?

    Of course you will believe the left version. Funny it was the administration that pushed that video bullshit for how long?? They knew it was a terrorist attack yet sent their minions out to every morning talk show still pushed that video crap.

    They also knew the consulate had requested more security how many times and were denied?

    I guess any person with a couple of brain cells, even you, can see who's lying. Well. Mayby not.
     
  9. Vel
    Offline

    Vel Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2008
    Messages:
    5,463
    Thanks Received:
    1,913
    Trophy Points:
    248
    Location:
    Tennessee
    Ratings:
    +1,914
    How is it that the WhiteHouse comes out and says, "We didn't do it" and you believe it even though it is completely implausible that the Whitehouse didn't know that terrorists were involved? So was Obama so disinterested that he didn't pick up the phone and call Petreaus after a CIA installation was attacked? Don't forget while you're following that logic that, by their own words, Nixon was not a crook and Clinton did not have sexual ralations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  10. peach174
    Offline

    peach174 Gold Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2010
    Messages:
    20,465
    Thanks Received:
    4,032
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    S.E. AZ
    Ratings:
    +7,315
    Everyone is ignoring what Panetta said.
    They are going after the wrong people like Petraeus and Rice.
    They should go after Panetta and the 2 Senior military commanders who said that they would not put troops is harms way because they did not know what was happening.
    Panetta: Unclear early info slowed Benghazi response - CBS News
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1

Share This Page