Posted on 05/16/2013 7:04:15 AM PDT by Sub-Driver
Benghazi Emails Directly Contradict White House Claims Stephen F. Hayes May 16, 2013 12:09 AM
The White House on Wednesday released 94 pages of emails between top administration and intelligence officials who helped shape the talking points about the attacks in Benghazi, Libya, that the CIA would provide to policymakers in both the legislative and executive branches.
The documents, first reported by THE WEEKLY STANDARD in articles here and here, directly contradict claims by White House press secretary Jay Carney and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that the revisions of those talking points were driven by the intelligence community and show heavy input from top Obama administration officials, particularly those at the State Department.
The emails provide further detail about the rewriting of the talking points during a 24-hour period from midday September 14 to midday September 15. As THE WEEKLY STANDARD previously reported, a briefing from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence shows that the big changes came in three waves – internally at the CIA, after email feedback from top administration officials, and during or after a meeting of high-ranking intelligence and national security officials the following morning.
The initial CIA changes softened some of the language about the participants in the Benghazi assault – from “Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda” to “Islamic extremists.” But CIA officials also added bullet points about the possible participation of Ansar al Sharia, an al Qaeda-linked jihadist group, and previous warnings about the deteriorating security situation in Benghazi. Those additions came out after the talking points were sent to “the interagency,” where the CIA’s final draft was further stripped down to little more than boilerplate. The half dozen references to terrorists – both in Benghazi and more generally – all but disappeared. Gone were references to al Qaeda, Ansar al Sharia, jihadists, Islamic extremists, etc. The only remaining mention was a note that “extremists” had participated in the attack.
As striking as what appears in the email traffic is what does not. There is no mention of the YouTube video that would become a central part of the administration’s explanation of the attacks to the American people until a brief mention in the subject line of emails coming out of an important meeting where further revisions were made.
Carney, in particular, is likely to face tough questioning about the contents of the emails because he made claims to reporters that were untrue. “The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two – of these two institutions were changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility,’ because the word ‘consulate’ was inaccurate,” he told reporters on November 28, 2012.
That’s not true. An email sent at 9:15 PM on September 14, from an official in the CIA’s Office of Public Affairs to others at the agency, described the process this way. “The State Department had major reservations with much or most of the document. We revised the document with their concerns in mind.”
That directly contradicts what Carney said. It’s also difficult to reconcile with claims made by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during testimony she gave January 23 on Capitol Hill.
“It was an intelligence product,” she said, adding later that the “intelligence community was the principal decider about what went into talking points.” (See here for the original version of the talking points and the final one.)
Carney and other top Obama administration officials have long maintained that CIA officials revised the talking points with minimal input from Obama administration officials. The claim made little sense when they made it – why would CIA officials revise on their own a set of talking points they’d already finalized? The emails demonstrate clearly that it isn’t true.
Another CIA email, this one a draft of a message for CIA director David Petraeus, noted that the talking points process had “run into major problems,” in part because of the “major concerns” raised by the State Department. That same email reported that the issues would be revisited at the Deputies Committee meeting on Saturday morning.
Elsewhere, CIA officials seemed to understand that the document had been stripped of most of its content. An email from an official with the CIA’s Office of Terrorism Analysis, the office that drafted the original version of the talking points, signed off on the final version but seemed to understand that the new version wouldn’t please those who had requested it. “They are fine with me,” this CIA official wrote. “But, pretty sure HPSCI [the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence] won’t like them. :-)”
When Petraeus received the rewritten talking points, he objected. “Frankly, I’d just as soon not use this,” he wrote to a legislative affairs staffer. But he declined to put up a fight.
The documents answer some questions and raise many others. Did Hillary Clinton have any role in the efforts of State Department staffers to push for the many substantive revisions to the talking points? Clinton, who testified that she was a hands-on part of the State Department’s response to the attacks, has claimed she had nothing to do with the talking points.
And what about the administration’s claims that State and White House officials weren’t involved with substantive edits? In one email, Jake Sullivan, deputy chief of staff to Hillary Clinton, reports to State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland that he’s spoken with Obama’s top spokesman at the National Security Council, Tommy Vietor. “I spoke with Tommy. We’ll work through this in the morning and get comments back.”
In a separate email, he writes: “Talked to Tommy. We can make edits.”
Ironic—the day he died, Ambassador Stevens (CIA) was meeting with a Turkish diplomat in Benghazi. The cover-up is really about Stevens’ gun-running of Libyan weapons through Turkey to the Syrian rebels.
I wonder if any in the Press will take this joint opportunity today to get to what the NY Times says is the “True Shame of Benghazi.”
I just heard Rand Paul on Geraldo’s radio show make reference to the fact that he questioned Hillary on the gun running to Syria by CIA and of course Hill went Sgt Schultz.
I’ll get slammed for even mentioning GR’s name, but, I believe he is the one who brought it up to Rand.
Not on the WH site either. Will he resign?
In reality, a government official can and should be impeached for something as common as falsifying an expense report! Anyone think you can't be impeached for gross incompetence? Of course you can.
Obama should have been impeached immediately for the BP shakedown years ago. Benghazi, IRS, AP - the reason congress' approval numbers are so low is because they havent fulfilled their oaths either - just like Obama, Holder, Big Sis, Clinton, on and on and on down the list.
The talking points were being created to send to Congressional committees with oversight.
The back-and-forth among the players on the talking point edits showed clearly that their audience was Congress. They were worried that Republicans in Congress would blame the State Dept. for not heeding CIA warnings about terrorist attacks in Benghazi, among other worries they had. So they scrubbed the talking points until they were meaningless drivel.
IOW, this was a report to Congressional oversight committees as to what went on in Benghazi. Not the details, but an overview.
There was a valid reason why these were created. So it would seem that their CONTENT or lack thereof should be analyzed, rather than the fact they existed at all.
if you see something..kindly ping me..
Carney might not be doing a presser today and the excuse could be that Obama is doing one with a visiting official.
Could be a cover reason for him not to do one.
Whether he resigns or not, who knows?
From what I see, somebody has told Obama - probably Valerie - to get out there and be the face of this stuff. But he has been carefully prepared to issue bromides and appear to be concerned, in charge, on the ball and trying to fix things. And to try to thread a needle on his Benghazi lies, and you can tell he is very practiced at attempting it, for the low information voter. He has already lost the informed voter.
Mendacity this open and broad is a function of pure arrogance. Once again the shredders will be running overnight in DC and the bureaucracies looking for how far down they can push the inevitable fall guy. These are our "leaders".
Obama misdirecting the American people —AGAIN. The release of e-mail is a ploy to draw off the attack. The real issues remain unanswered. The Mission in Libya.the Fast and furious on Steroids trafficking in weapons to Islamic terrorists linked to AlQaeda. The cover-up. The intimidation of whistle blowers.The dead men left behind by this President......
Her real family name is Nudelman.
That's gotta smart..
I don't get it. That makes no sense. Not in English, anyway.
So, the intel agencies do not actually feed the truth to the fedzilla, they feed what the fedzilla tells them to send to them in a final draft? Yeah, that agency should get billions more to spend on intel, which the rel rulers then sift through and pick waht they want the drones to sent to them in a final draft. Presto, the Chicago Way. And Petr ... and Betrayus fit right in with that fen. Now we see why honor is part of the imaginary ID for rank above a certain level. They have none and exhibit less.
Interesting discussion I’ve sparked.
I have a graduate studies professor who has a Ph.D. in linguistics with a focus on English syntax who disagrees with the three of you.
I personally don’t have a dog in the fight, but he brought up this exact quote today in a discussion post and corrected it, so I was just mimicking him. I’ve sent numerous links to him as a correction but have yet to hear back.
I’ll let you know what he says in response.
Okay, I stand corrected. He pointed out that I misunderstood his post, and I did.
Apologies.
That’s okay . . . I proofread all the time as part of my day job. :-)
He's wrong.
I corrected myself in a subsequent post.
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.