Posted on 05/10/2013 9:17:02 AM PDT by Kaslin
ABC journalist Jon Karl actually followed up on Wednesday's Benghazi hearings, exposing that CIA talking points on the September 11, 2012 terrorist attack were "dramatically edited" a total of 12 times by the administration. In a report airing on Friday's Good Morning America, Karl explained to viewers that, between the first version and the last, "all references to al Qaeda and all references to CIA warnings before the attack about the terror threat in Benghazi" were removed. [See video below. MP3 audio here.]
An ABC graphic went so far as to wonder, "Benghazi Statements Not True? White House Statements contradicted." Karl quoted from Hillary Clinton's State Department spokeswoman, Victoria Nuland. Playing politics, Nuland said of the information in the warnings, "[It] could be abused by members of Congress to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that?" An online version of Karl's story showcased a full paragraph that was removed.
This section, highlighting previous CIA warnings about Al Qaeda threats, was entirely deleted:
The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al-Qa’ida in Benghazi and eastern Libya. These noted that, since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador’s convoy. We cannot rule out the individuals has previously surveilled the U.S. facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks.
Rush just stated that obama’s head of communication is now stating that the the republicans forced obama into lying... I kid you not.
LLS
They are only investigating half of the lie.
Lie #1) Scrubbing mention of Islamists and Al Qeaeda
Lie #2) Blame it on an obscure video
Who decided to blame it on a video?
Who convinced the POTUS, the SoS and their staff that they were going to go with the vieo lie?
Who decided to spend money on advertising in Pakistan to promote the lie?
Who helped the POTUS carefully parse his words in his speech to the UN?
Who made the call to local law enforcement to roust the video maker out of bed at 2am?
Note that the first paragraph of the original contains the following:
"We believe based on currently available information that the attacks in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex."
That sentence skated through the edit cycle essentially and perhaps completely unscathed. And, you should note, it is pretty soft. There is no question that it left an opening for Hillary to stick in the YouTube reference.
But I have a problem with ABC's Draft #1 which includes that sentence. If you look at the text at the link you will notice that the ABC First Draft is relatively short. Previous images of the original (Hannity? Steve Hayes?) that I have seen show a much longer original Draft. So I'm confused.
Do we really know that ABC has given us all of the Drafts? Was that weasel-worded sentence really in the First Draft? I wonder.
Anyone wanting on or off this ping list, please advise.
OMG....Now...that’s a sure sign of treason.
They did not defend our 1st amendment rights but blamed those rights instead.
In blaming it on a “video” they were pushing talk about limiting the 1st amendment. And that our freedoms went too far and needed to be restricted. They also tried to make the case to prosecute the video maker. There were numerous editorials and politicians pushing for restrictions on free speech.
It was a lie with serious consequences for all of us. Not just some talk. And it is from the man who swore and oath to defend those constitutional rights above all other things.
So has the regime started investigating ABC yet?
The fact that a News Organization gets a headline WHEN THEY ACTUALLY DO THEIR JOB is an indication of how far we have fallen.
Those wascally Wepublicans... is there anything they CANNOT do??
Thanks for posting,
Apparently the media now wants a witch hunt for some lazy clerical typist, omitting text so they might sooner take a smoke break.
To summarize what Limbaugh has been saying for days:
At about 5pm eastern time in Washington, we’re told that Obama met separately with Hillary Clinton and Leon Panetta telling each they needed to handle the attack in Benghazi.
Neither Hillary Clinton nor Panetta had the authority to order the military into action. And, conversely, neither could legally order the military to “stand down” during an attack on sovereign territory.
Obama’s whereabouts after 5 pm are undocumented. We are to believe Obama was having fish tacos and watching TV...while a terrorist attack was occurring on the 10 year anniversary of 9-11.
Just business as usual. It’s so bad the White Hut feeds the press their taking pioints before the press conference.
On The Five yesterday Eric Bolling posted a timeline that had the bamster meeting with Panetta and/or Clinton at 11pm the night of the Benghazi attack.
That was first time I’d heard of the bamster being up that late unless it was for a fundraiser.
Jay must be on the phone to the president of ABC. “Hey, what’s going on here!? You said you had my back on this!”
"CIA director David Petraeus was surprised when he read the freshly rewritten talking points an aide had emailed him in the early afternoon of Saturday, September 15. One day earlier, analysts with the CIA’s Office of Terrorism Analysis had drafted a set of unclassified talking points policymakers could use to discuss the attacks in Benghazi, Libya. But this new version—produced with input from senior Obama administration policymakers—was a shadow of the original."
They certainly are a bunch of meanies to obomba huh!
LLS
It’s going on right now as I type 2:54 pm CST
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.