Barack Obama today defending the administration’s handling of Benghazi.
“Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior, along with the protest that took place at our Embassy in Cairo yesterday, as a response to inflammatory material posted on the internet”
Hillary Clinton, obfuscating.
“we don’t have and did not have concrete evidence to suggest that this [the Benghazi attack] was not in reaction to the film.” He went on to say: “There was no intelligence that in any way could have been acted on to prevent these attacks.We have no information to suggest that it was a preplanned attack. The unrest we’ve seen around the region has been in reaction to a video that Muslims, many Muslims find offensive. And while the violence is reprehensible and unjustified, it is not a reaction to the 9/11 anniversary that we know of, or to U.S. policy
Jay Carney, dissembling over the cause of the attack, and LYING about the CIA having warned PREVIOUSLY that the consulate was in danger.
On May 10, 2013, ABC News’ Jonathan Karl reported that it had “obtained 12 different versions of the talking points that show they were extensively edited as they evolved from the drafts first written entirely by the CIA to the final version distributed to Congress and to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice before she appeared on five talk shows.”[223] The changes made to the talking points,[224] according to the report, appear to directly contradict what White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said about them in November 2012. On the May 12 episode of ABC News This Week, Karl said that when then-CIA Director David Petraeus saw the final talking points the Saturday before Rice went on the Sunday talk shows he said they were “essentially useless.” Karl went on to quote from an e-mail in which Petraeus said of the talking points: “I would just as soon not use them, but it’s their [the White House’s] call.”
ABC NEWS
State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland raised specific objections to this paragraph drafted by the CIA in its earlier versions of the talking points:“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.”In an email to officials at the White House and the intelligence agencies, State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland took issue with including that information because 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 either? Concerned …”The paragraph was entirely deleted.
3 comments:
And this Victoria Nuland still has a job???
They have no concept of objective reality.
Everything is framing. Everything is context management. Everything is an experiment in malleability. Everything is subject to negotiation. Everything is subject to interpretation.
Nothing is substantial.
There are NO criteria which define action.
There are NO criteria which define right and wrong.
The universe consists of subjective view.
The sky actually HAS NO COLOR
Uh oh, Justice Department won’t say why it seized phone records from journos covering feds
Post a Comment