Benghazi e-mails show clash between State Department, CIA (Nope, nothing to see here)

Washington Post ^ | 5-11-2013 | By Scott Wilson and Karen DeYoung

[JohnHuang2]

New details from administration e-mails about last year’s attacks on the U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya, demonstrate that an intense bureaucratic clash took place between the State Department and the CIA over which agency would get to tell the story of how the tragedy unfolded.

That clash played out in the development of administration talking points that have been at the center of the controversy over the handling of the incident, according to the e-mails that came to light Friday. Full article here

=============================================================

Liberals had been giddy all week, believing their own silly press releases (commonly known as "newspapers") arguing that the 'Republican-run' Benghazi hearings produced no real smoking gun, all the while furiously attacking the whistleblowers and insisting they weren't attacking the whistleblowers.

Many libbies even fantasized that the Benghazi hearings had already blown over -- some were making this keen observation minutes after the hearings began.

Liberals kept telling each other that Benghazi won't even be a teensy-weensy, itty-bitty blip on the radar screen by the time Campaign 2016 rolls around -- that more than enough time will have elapsed between the murders in Benghazi and the next presidential campaign, paving the way for president Hillary, Gaea willing.

But then Jonathan Karl of ABC news had to gum up the works. Remember Him? He's the chap accused of perpetrating journalism a few weeks ago, when he reduced Obama during his press conference into insisting he still had the relevant juice and that reports of his de-juicification are greatly exaggerated.

Now Jonathan Karl reports there were a dozen differing versions of the Benghazi talking points which show extensive editing "as they evolved from the drafts first written entirely by the CIA" to the "final version" written entirely by Mr. Magoo.

No threats of terrorist attacks, no terrorist attacks, no warning of five other recent attacks in Benghazi against foreign interests, no Ansar al-Sharia and no al-Qaeda to see here, move along.

Since it was clear the original version written by the CIA was riddled with factual accuracies, Hillary's State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland insisted on plenty of dishwashing liquid and scrub brushes as part of the 'editing' process. It was all to ensure the final version their programmed little robot Susan Rice would read off from on all the Sunday news shows pegged the needle on the ol' Baghdad-Bob-o-meter past the breaking point.

For months, White House flack Jay Carney kept frenziedly pointing the press to his own lies back in November as evidence he was telling the truth about the talking points.

Today, Obama's spokes-hack was pulled out of that comfort zone by Obama's jilted lovers during his 'Honey, It's-not-what-you-think-- I-can-explain!' presser which had the whiff of blood in the water all over the place. Benghazi won't be dropping into any memory hole yet -- in fact, this is just the warm-up act.

Anyway, that's...
My Two Cents...
"JohnHuang2"

[SumProVita]

“Nuland needs to be in front of the committee or a special committee, under oath first, followed by Hillary.”

__________________________

Amen!

[randita]

I was waiting to read what the WP and NYT would put out today because I knew it would be word for word pablum of what they were fed yesterday at the super secret press briefing.

This is the newest meme: It was a turf war between the CIA and State. The CIA report was accurate, but State couldn’t reveal the information about al Queda involvement because it would imperil the investigation.

So, you see it wasn’t political at all. State was doing its darndest to make sure the bad guys didn’t know we were on to them. Some hard hitting investigation it’s been, since 8 months later we just got ultra grainy photos of men seen at the attack who “might” have been involved.

Okay, say we buy that this was a turf war. If that’s all it was, they could have gotten away with releasing very minimal information-more info would be released as the investigation continues.

Then why the video story? No mention in the WP article of the video. If accuracy was of utmost importance early on in the investigation, why create a scenario so totally divorced from reality?

Why the overkill with the video?

[Grampa Dave]

— Then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Jan. 23, 2013:

“I wasn’t involved in the talking points process.... As I understand it, as I’ve been told, it was a typical interagency process where staff, including from the State Department, all participated, to try to come up with whatever was going to be made publicly available, and it was an intelligence product.”

“With all due respect,the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided to go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make?”—Hillary Clinton

[abclily]

Because the terrorists were supposed to kidnap Ambassador Stevens for a swap for the blind Sheik. Instead they killed Ambassador Stevens. That is what they are trying to cover up. It will not work. The truth will come out. The sooner the better.

[Star Traveler]

Thanks ...

[FreeReign]

Still waiting for the gun-running reports to surface.

Maybe there will be gun-running reports and maybe there won't.

However there are plenty of reports NOW, that we don't have to wait for, that show other treasonous activity.

[Mama_Bear]

Hey, JH2, long time no hug! Thanks for the Mother’s Day wishes and the ping. (I won’t be spending my Mother’s Day with my only son, as he is working in Angola at the moment, but he makes me feel like it’s Mother’s Day all year ‘round, so it doesn’t matter.)

Hope all is well with you and yours. Love your Two Cents! As always, spot on. :-)

(((((((((((((JH2)))))))))))))

[crosslink]

Thank you for all your hard work spreading the truth

[Vaduz]

Obama find out there are other departments in government and control isn’t 100%.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your outstanding essay-post!

[dixiechick2000]

” Obama’s jilted lovers during his ‘Honey, It’s-not-what-you-think— I-can-explain!’ presser”

I love it! You sure do know how to turn a phrase. ;o)

I took the weekend off from politics/scandals, and just look at what I missed!

It’s always good to read your thoughts. They aren’t just cogent, but are funny and so entertaining. You make stuff fun!

Thank you so much for posting. I am reminded of your awesome postings during the Clinton years. Good times...well, good postings, at least. ;o)

[dixiechick2000]

Awesome post bump!

Thanks, Gramps!

[MHGinTN]

Still in top form I see! Great piece John. Love the sarcastic jibes. Mr Magoo indeed!