Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

News & Politics News & Politics

GOP’s Benghazi Conspiracy Falls Apart: White House Didn’t Change Susan Rice’s Talking Points

Pema_Jampa
Report
Aicha
Yesterday at 7:04 PM
Khaled, Taha, Faudel - Aicha - Live HD

Live Concert - 1,2,3 Soleils - 1998 ***Warning*** The last person who copied/stole this video to his account was reported and YT removed his copy of this video.

Posted by on Nov. 20, 2012 at 12:17 PM
  • 19 Replies

GOP’s Benghazi Conspiracy Falls Apart: White House Didn’t Change Susan Rice’s Talking Points

Susan Rice

Intelligence officials told CNN that the intelligence community, not the White House, changed the now infamous Benghazi talking points given to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice before her appearance on several morning news shows in September. CNN quoted both the spokesperson for the Director of National Intelligence and an anonymous official “familiar with the drafting of the talking points.” The DNI spokesperson said that the only “substantive changes” came from the intelligence community and not the White House.

Former CIA Director David Petraeus told lawmakers in a closed door hearing last week that the CIA’s original assessment on the Sept. 11 Benghazi attack was that it was carried out by al Qaeda affiliated groups. But he reportedly said that analysis was later taken out after an interagency review in favor of a more general assessment that “extremists” carried out the attack to broaden the scope and not tip off terrorists to U.S. knowledge on the matter. And despite the fact that Petraeus said the CIA approved the change, Republicans, led by Republican senators John McCain (AZ), Lindsey Graham (SC) and Kelly Ayotte (NH), have accused the White House of stripping the language for political reasons.

But Shawn Turner, the spokesman for the Director of National Intelligence, told CNN that it wasn’t the White House’s decision:

“The intelligence community made substantive, analytical changes before the talking points were sent to government agency partners for their feedback.There were no substantive changes made to the talking points after they left the intelligence community.”

Another anonymous intelligence official echoed Turner, saying that the changes were made based on legitimate intelligence and for legal purposes:

“First, the information about individuals linked to al Qaeda was derived from classified sources. Second, when links were so tenuous – as they still are – itmakes 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.”

Indeed, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) told the New York Times last week that in his closed door briefing, Petraeus “was adamant there was no politicization of the process, no White House interference or political agenda.”

The fight over the talking points will most likely continue; it has even become a campaign cause for Republican senators like Lindsey Graham. Others like John McCain have vowed to do “everything” to block the potential nomination of Susan Rice for Secretary of State. But Democrats in Congress and media commentators are beginning to wonder why Republicans are picking a substance-free fight with Rice, a woman and an African-American, after the drubbing they took in last month’s elections among those demographics.

by on Nov. 20, 2012 at 12:17 PM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
_Kissy_
by on Nov. 20, 2012 at 12:18 PM
Interesting
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
rccmom
by Gold Member on Nov. 20, 2012 at 12:18 PM

Doesn't matter what they say, some will be utterly convinced there is a cover-up, and others will use that belief for political gain.

Peanutx3
by Silver Member on Nov. 20, 2012 at 12:22 PM

Yep

Quoting rccmom:

Doesn't matter what they say, some will be utterly convinced there is a cover-up, and others will use that belief for political gain.


LIMom1105
by on Nov. 20, 2012 at 12:28 PM


Quoting rccmom:

Doesn't matter what they say, some will be utterly convinced there is a cover-up, and others will use that belief for political gain.

Agreed. So many are so mad at Obama, they are just searching for something to pin on him.

NancSBRN
by Bronze Member on Nov. 20, 2012 at 1:35 PM

Who care what the people here think as long as McCain and Graham, Ayotte get the message. This is just detracting from their work on the Budget, and maybe that is what they want.

BoysManDog
by Bronze Member on Nov. 20, 2012 at 1:59 PM
2 moms liked this

 

Really?  So that means that Obama, Hillary, and everyone else were reading from this supposedly DNI-dictated language?  Because, they, for weeks, perpetrated the lie of  nasty anti-Muslim-video-and-understandable-ensuing-violent-protest.  Because Obama even went on Pakistani tv to apologize for and plead forgiveness for the nasty video.  So he's an idiot or he was in on it and agreed to lie?  Which is it? 

And as for this "anonymous" tripe:  " it makes sense to be cautious before pointing fingers so you don’t set off a chain of circular and self-reinforcing assumptions."

Cautious not to point fingers, huh?  Like at the poor guy who made the video  that no onewatched and rioted against?  You know, not point fingers like even Obama did at this guy, saying he was a "shady character," who was immediately arrested by the feds and who now sits in jail for a parole violation that anyone else would have walked over?  You mean point fingers like that?  Or engage in the LIBERAL "self-reinforcing assumption" that the poor Muslims ONLY react to the nasty things WE do?   That is was our fault because we have these silly things like freedom of speech that we need to apologize for?

shimamab
by on Nov. 20, 2012 at 2:13 PM
2 moms liked this
GOPers don't care...doesn't fit their "narrative". And I'm getting sick of hearing about the poor, persecuted American citizen being wrongly punished for making the video. He's a felon...on parole...for fraud. His video did cause an uproar in other countries. He was arrested for parole violations due to his stupid decision to use aliases during the making of the video. I don't blame him for others' actions, he's paying for his own. Dumbass should've kept on the up and up until off parole.
Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
BoysManDog
by Bronze Member on Nov. 20, 2012 at 2:19 PM

 

I have to laugh at the irony of the libs defending the arrest and imprisonment of guy-who-said-bad-things-about-Mohammed while their pet project is to FREE MUMIA. 

shimamab
by on Nov. 20, 2012 at 2:22 PM
1 mom liked this

I'm not a lib, he wasn't arrested for saying bad things, and I have no idea what FREE MUMIA is...but as long as you're getting a laugh, you're welcome.

Quoting BoysManDog:


I have to laugh at the irony of the libs defending the arrest and imprisonment of guy-who-said-bad-things-about-Mohammed while their pet project is to FREE MUMIA. 


BoysManDog
by Bronze Member on Nov. 20, 2012 at 2:28 PM

 

Not a lib.  Sure.  Whatevs.  

And for a guy who did nothing, sure was weird for the President of the United States to blame the murders of four people on him, huh?  Over and over.  I mean, I am SURE if he had, you know, put a crucifix in urine, he would have been arrested and jailed for a parole violation, right?  Oh, no .... He would have won an award for that.

 

 

Quoting shimamab:

I'm not a lib, he wasn't arrested for saying bad things, and I have no idea what FREE MUMIA is...but as long as you're getting a laugh, you're welcome.

Quoting BoysManDog:

 

I have to laugh at the irony of the libs defending the arrest and imprisonment of guy-who-said-bad-things-about-Mohammed while their pet project is to FREE MUMIA. 



Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)