Intel Community said they altered Rice Talking points

[Annie]

Who are you quoting and-----and do you have a link to your quote "There is absolutely no evidence that this was a terrorist attack.". I just Googled your quote, this...

No results found for "There is absolutely no evidence that this was a terrorist attack.".



...is what came up. Question: is Google wrong or are you making stuff up again?
.

Where did I say I was quoting anyone?

As I thought --- you made that chit up (nothing new 'bout that) but-----but please explain why you would use quotation marks for something you made up?
.

Sep 14, 2012 1:02pm
Were These Attacks A Failure of the Obama Administration — Today’s Q’s for O’s WH — 9/14/12

TAPPER: One of my colleagues in the Associated Press asked you a direct question, was there any direct intelligence suggesting that there would be an attack on the U.S. consulates. You said that a story — referred to a story being false and said there was no actionable intelligence, but you didn’t answer his question. Was there any intelligence, period — intelligence, period, suggesting that there was going to be an attack on either the –

CARNEY: There was no intelligence that in any way could have been acted on to prevent these attacks. It is — I mean, I think the DNI spokesman was very declarative about this, that the report is false. The report suggested that there was intelligence that was available prior to this that led us to believe that this facility would be attacked, and that is false.

...

CARNEY: Well, as you know, there — we are very vigilant around anniversaries like 9/11. The president is always briefed and brought up to speed on all the precautions being taken. But let’s be -

TAPPER: Obviously not vigilant enough.

CARNEY: Jake, let’s be clear. This — these protests were in reaction to a video that had spread to the region –

TAPPER: At Benghazi?

CARNEY: We certainly don’t know; we don’t know otherwise. You know, 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.

TAPPER: The group around the Benghazi post was well-armed, it was a well-coordinated attack. Do you think it was a spontaneous protest against a movie?

CARNEY: Look, this is obviously under investigation, and I don’t have — but I answered the question.

ANOTHER REPORTER: But your operating assumptions — your operating assumption is that that was — that was in response to the video, in Benghazi? I just want to clear that up. That’s the framework; that’s the operating assumption?

CARNEY: It’s not an assumption –

TAPPER: Administration officials have said that it looks like this was something other than -

CARNEY: I think there have been misreports on this, Jake, even in the press, which some of it has been speculative. What I’m telling you is this is under investigation. The unrest around the region has been in response to this video. We do not, at this moment, have information to suggest or to tell you that would indicate that any of this unrest was preplanned.

What is true about Libya is that — a couple of things. One is it’s one of the more pro-American countries in the region. Two, it is a very new government. It is a country that has just come out of a revolution and a lot of turmoil, and there are certainly a lot of armed groups. So the fact that there are weapons in the region and the new government is not — you know, is still building up its capacities in terms of security and its — and its ability to ensure the security of facilities is not necessarily reflective of anything except for the remarkable transformation that’s been going on in the region.

TAPPER: My last question, it was said that what happened at 9/11 was a failure of imagination, failure of American policymakers and counterterrorism officials to anticipate the kind of attack that could have taken place. This would seem to be the exact opposite. Was this a failure by the Obama administration? Did the president and his administration mess up in any way?

CARNEY: Jake, again, what we have seen is unrest around the region in response to a video that Muslims find offensive, many Muslims find offensive. We have seen incidents like this in the past in reaction to other actions, cartoons, and other actions that have been taken that have been — have led to protests and violence in the region.

And we have managed those situations, and we are working to ensure that our diplomatic personnel and our diplomatic facilities are secure as we deal with the response to this video, which we believe is offensive and disgusting….I think you have to understand what is happening currently in the region and what it is a response to. This is not — this has been in –

TAPPER: No, I don’t need to understand that, I think the people who protect the embassies need to understand it.

MR. CARNEY: The cause of the unrest was a video, and that continues today, as you know, as we anticipated. And it may continue for sometime. We are working with governments around the region to remind them of their responsibilities to provide security to diplomatic personnel and facilities, and we are ensuring that more resources are put in place to protect our embassies and consulates and our personnel in these parts of the world where unrest is occurring.

**

(Later in the briefing)

TAPPER: While we were sitting here, Secretary Panetta and the vice chair of the joint chiefs briefed the Senate Armed Services Committee, and the senators came out and said their indication was that this — for the attack on Benghazi — was a terrorist attack organized and carried out by terrorists, that it was premeditated, a calculated act of terror. Levin said — Senator Levin, I think it was a planned premeditated attack, the kind of equipment that they had used. There is evidence it was a planned premeditated attack. Is there anything more you can — now that the administration is briefing senators on this, is there anything more you can tell us?

CARNEY: Right. Well, I think we wait to hear from administration officials. Again, it’s actively under investigation, both the Benghazi attack and incidents elsewhere, you know. And my point was that at — we don’t have and did not have concrete evidence to suggest that this was not in reaction to the film.

But we’re obviously investigating the matter, and, you know, I’ll certainly — you know, I’m sure both Department of Defense and the White House and other places will have more to say about that as more information becomes available.

-Jake Tapper

Ambassador Rice spends Sunday reinforcing White House position that Middle East violence was 'spontaneous' | Fox News

Ambassador Rice spends Sunday reinforcing White House position that Middle East violence was 'spontaneous'

Published September 16, 2012

U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice blanketed the TV airways Sunday to reinforce the Obama administration’s position that the deadly violence at American outposts across the Middle East last week was the result of an anti-Muslim video -- delivering her message on four morning talk shows.

"What sparked the violence was a very hateful video on the Internet," Rice said on "Fox News Sunday." "It was a reaction to a video that had nothing to do with the United States."

She also repeated the administration’s message that the attacks, which started Tuesday in Egypt and spread to more the 20 U.S. posts in the region, were “spontaneous,” not planned or timed for the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks.

“The best information and the best assessment we have today is that this was not a pre-planned, pre-meditated attack,” Rice also told Fox News. “What happened initially was that it was a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo as a consequence of the video. People gathered outside the embassy and then it grew very violent. And those with extremist ties joined the fray and came with heavy weapons, which unfortunately are quite common in post-revolutionary Libya, and that then spun out of control.”

...

“So this is something we've seen in the past, and we expect that it's possible that these kinds of things could percolate into the future,” Rice said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

Her comments were in sharp contrast to those Sunday of Libyan President Mohammed el-Megarif, who in separate interviews with NPR Radio and CBS’ “Face the Nation” dismissed the notion that the attacks, at least in his country, were spontaneous.

"The idea that this criminal and cowardly act was a spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous," Megarif told NPR. "We firmly believe that this was a pre-calculated, pre-planned attack that was carried out specifically to attack the U.S. Consulate."


Read more: Ambassador Rice spends Sunday reinforcing White House position that Middle East violence was 'spontaneous' | Fox News

Carney maintains Libya attack was not preplanned - CBS News Video

There's video here at site:
Carney maintains Libya attack was not preplanned

September 19, 2012 3:57 PM

CBS News White House correspondent Bill Plante on Wednesday challenged press secretary Jay Carney on the White House's continued insistence that the terrorist attack on a U.S. consulate in Libya was not preplanned.

President Obama's speech to the UN general assembly

President Obama's speech to the UN general assembly – full transcript

Delivered to the UN in New York on 25 September 2012

...In other words, true democracy – real freedom – is hard work. Those in power have to resist the temptation to crack down on dissent. In hard economic times, countries may be tempted to rally the people around perceived enemies, at home and abroad, rather than focusing on the painstaking work of reform.

Moreover, there will always be those that reject human progress – dictators who cling to power, corrupt interests that depend upon the status quo; and extremists who fan the flames of hate and division. From Northern Ireland to South Asia; from Africa to the Americas; from the Balkans to the Pacific Rim, we've witnessed convulsions that can accompany transitions to a new political order. At times, the conflicts arise along the fault lines of faith, race or tribe; and often they arise from the difficulties of reconciling tradition and faith with the diversity and interdependence of the modern world. In every country, there are those who find different religious beliefs threatening; in every culture, those who love freedom for themselves must ask how much they are willing to tolerate freedom for others.

That is what we saw play out the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity. It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well – for as the city outside these walls makes clear, we are a country that has welcomed people of every race and religion. We are home to Muslims who worship across our country. We not only respect the freedom of religion – we have laws that protect individuals from being harmed because of how they look or what they believe. We understand why people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them.

I know there are some who ask why we don't just ban such a video. The answer is enshrined in our laws: our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech. Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense. Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs. Moreover, as President of our country, and Commander-in-Chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day, and I will always defend their right to do so. Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views – even views that we disagree with. (until of course they found the guy the made a 'video' and used a parole technicality to throw him in jail.)

...

25-11=2 weeks after the 9/11/12 attack.

 

[wavingrl]

Obama.

How long? 2013, 2014, 2015 or 2016?

Watergate. Woodward and Bernstein. You cannot tell me that we don't have 2 similar people in existence today.

The clock on the wall is ticking.

 

[Annie]

Obama.

How long? 2013, 2014, 2015 or 2016?

Watergate. Woodward and Bernstein. You cannot tell me that we don't have 2 similar people in existence today.

The clock on the wall is ticking.

There are no investigations of this administration by mainstream media. None. I think most reporters today are nothing but cheerleaders for their party.

 

[Star]

She read what she was given, Nut Case...She did not "Lie" as many in the GOP said. Get over it...YOU LOST!

LOL, No they can't, they are disgusting, fake, hypocrites, who feign outrage about this , so they can use it as a political football and try to score cheap "points".

Like so much of this story -story?- Obama watching the Benghazi attack in "real time" wasmade up-----made up by a blogger and reported as fact by Forbes but IMO we won't know all the details of the attack until the the perps are caught or killed and/or national security is not threatened by the declassification.


Some classified material takes a long time to be made public and some classified material, not so much. Take for example; Everett Dirksen agreeing with LBJ that Nixon was committing treason, caught on tape here> [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeHeAWN-nos"]Dirksen LBJ[/ame] ----- that took about 40 years to see sunshine but-----but most (not all) of the classified documents from the 1980 Reagan stolen election, AKA Iran-Contra only took 20 years +++ etc.


But for someone that was part of the Phoenix Program, I digress.
.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Maybe you delusional RW loons should read what the link said:

The unclassified talking points were first developed by the CIA at the request of the House Intelligence Committee, whose members wanted to know what they could say publicly about the Benghazi attack.

Benghazi talking points omitted link to al Qaeda

The initial version included information linking individuals involved in the attack to al Qaeda, according to a senior U.S. official familiar with the drafting of the talking points. But when the document was sent to the rest of the intelligence community for review, there was a decision to change "al Qaeda" to "extremists." The official said the change was made for legitimate intelligence and legal reasons, not for political purposes.

"First, the information about individuals linked to al Qaeda was derived from classified sources," the official said. "Second, when links were so tenuous - as they still are - it makes 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."

The talking points came from the CIA....NOT THE WHITE HOUSE. No one was told to lie. Rice was reading the Talking Points...HER FRIGIN JOB!

Maybe you should read the link, the talking points were "edited" by a flunky in the ONI.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Who are you quoting and-----and do you have a link to your quote "There is absolutely no evidence that this was a terrorist attack.". I just Googled your quote, this...

No results found for "There is absolutely no evidence that this was a terrorist attack.".



...is what came up. Question: is Google wrong or are you making stuff up again?
.

Where did I say I was quoting anyone?

As I thought --- you made that chit up (nothing new 'bout that) but-----but please explain why you would use quotation marks for something you made up?
.

I also made up the part about we can't talk about it, why doesn't that bother you?

 

[Annie]

Maybe you delusional RW loons should read what the link said:

The unclassified talking points were first developed by the CIA at the request of the House Intelligence Committee, whose members wanted to know what they could say publicly about the Benghazi attack.

Benghazi talking points omitted link to al Qaeda

The initial version included information linking individuals involved in the attack to al Qaeda, according to a senior U.S. official familiar with the drafting of the talking points. But when the document was sent to the rest of the intelligence community for review, there was a decision to change "al Qaeda" to "extremists." The official said the change was made for legitimate intelligence and legal reasons, not for political purposes.

"First, the information about individuals linked to al Qaeda was derived from classified sources," the official said. "Second, when links were so tenuous - as they still are - it makes 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."

The talking points came from the CIA....NOT THE WHITE HOUSE. No one was told to lie. Rice was reading the Talking Points...HER FRIGIN JOB!

Maybe you should read the link, the talking points were "edited" by a flunky in the ONI.

It's quite unbelievable that a 'flunky' would change Petraeus's words without approval from above. Somehow I see more 'editing' of this in our future.

 

[Annie]

Where did I say I was quoting anyone?

As I thought --- you made that chit up (nothing new 'bout that) but-----but please explain why you would use quotation marks for something you made up?
.

I also made up the part about we can't talk about it, why doesn't that bother you?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ltered-rice-talking-points-6.html#post6379633

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Maybe you delusional RW loons should read what the link said:

The talking points came from the CIA....NOT THE WHITE HOUSE. No one was told to lie. Rice was reading the Talking Points...HER FRIGIN JOB!

Maybe you should read the link, the talking points were "edited" by a flunky in the ONI.

It's quite unbelievable that a 'flunky' would change Petraeus's words without approval from above. Somehow I see more 'editing' of this in our future.

Clapper says it wasn't him, and that he didn't know about, that leaves a flunky.

 

[Annie]

Maybe you should read the link, the talking points were "edited" by a flunky in the ONI.

It's quite unbelievable that a 'flunky' would change Petraeus's words without approval from above. Somehow I see more 'editing' of this in our future.

Clapper says it wasn't him, and that he didn't know about, that leaves a flunky.

Or less that truth of some sort. One thing about bureaucrats, it's all CYA and Petraeus was at top of CIA, no way was a flunky changing anything of his, without someone else to blame.

 

[emptystep]

Maybe you delusional RW loons should read what the link said:

The unclassified talking points were first developed by the CIA at the request of the House Intelligence Committee, whose members wanted to know what they could say publicly about the Benghazi attack.

Benghazi talking points omitted link to al Qaeda

The initial version included information linking individuals involved in the attack to al Qaeda, according to a senior U.S. official familiar with the drafting of the talking points. But when the document was sent to the rest of the intelligence community for review, there was a decision to change "al Qaeda" to "extremists." The official said the change was made for legitimate intelligence and legal reasons, not for political purposes.

"First, the information about individuals linked to al Qaeda was derived from classified sources," the official said. "Second, when links were so tenuous - as they still are - it makes 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."

The talking points came from the CIA....NOT THE WHITE HOUSE. No one was told to lie. Rice was reading the Talking Points...HER FRIGIN JOB!

Maybe you should read the link, the talking points were "edited" by a flunky in the ONI.

If you are saying 'an intelligence source' is blaming the Obama appointed DNI, sorry, not buying it.

 

[blackhawk]

Just about a week ago James Clapper claimed he didn't know who changed the talking points now were hearing he or his office did forgive me if I call bull shit on this.

 

[wavingrl]

So our Ambassador to the United Nations is not responsible for anything she says?

Of course shs's responsible. But not for what was in the report. For being dumb enough to not verify anything she was handed.

mmmm--I don't it was stupidity, wish it could be so simple.

eh---Neal Boortz, libertarian talk show host, frequently reminds listeners that before the previous inauguration, Valerie Jarrett said, 'We will be ready to 'rule'.'

Seems to me that is what is going on. All serve at the pleasure of the POTUS and the 'plan', goals, strategy and whatever had to be explained to all early in the game.

Certainly, I believe Ambassador Rice knew what she was doing. Another commentator said, 'She appeared on 5 talk shows the Sunday after Sept 11th and that means she contacted them.'

???The People are stupid we can 'make this work'???

Please. It didn't work and I am irritated beyond agitation that time and money has to be further wasted to play this little game. If any sort of integrity was involved the response would have been different. I know this. It is one thing on the very day an incident occurs to go on record --'Further fact finding and discovery is necessary...' Then go on record a few days later with as close to accuracy as you can come.

None of that happened. Insult my intelligence, I will not forget and quite possibly never consider forgiving. I don't care ---The Obamas are clearly a nice family---that is good. The kind of 's' that always seems to be flying around is a matter of concern. shrug.

We have investigative journalists who continually tell us how great they are. Then get to digging in the muck and the mire and bring forth the Truth. ASAP.

 

[emptystep]

The righties are pissed off at Obama for apologizing for freedom of speech, at Obama for not sending help, at Rice for lying. There is someone they forgot to be mad at. The fuckers who killed our four Americans in the first place.

 

[emptystep]

 

[Annie]

So our Ambassador to the United Nations is not responsible for anything she says?

Of course shs's responsible. But not for what was in the report. For being dumb enough to not verify anything she was handed.

mmmm--I don't it was stupidity, wish it could be so simple.

eh---Neal Boortz, libertarian talk show host, frequently reminds listeners that before the previous inauguration, Valerie Jarrett said, 'We will be ready to 'rule'.'

Seems to me that is what is going on. All serve at the pleasure of the POTUS and the 'plan', goals, strategy and whatever had to be explained to all early in the game.

Certainly, I believe Ambassador Rice knew what she was doing. Another commentator said, 'She appeared on 5 talk shows the Sunday after Sept 11th and that means she contacted them.'

???The People are stupid we can 'make this work'???

Please. It didn't work and I am irritated beyond agitation that time and money has to be further wasted to play this little game. If any sort of integrity was involved the response would have been different. I know this. It is one thing on the very day an incident occurs to go on record --'Further fact finding and discovery is necessary...' Then go on record a few days later with as close to accuracy as you can come.

None of that happened. Insult my intelligence, I will not forget and quite possibly never consider forgiving. I don't care ---The Obamas are clearly a nice family---that is good. The kind of 's' that always seems to be flying around is a matter of concern. shrug.

We have investigative journalists who continually tell us how great they are. Then get to digging in the muck and the mire and bring forth the Truth. ASAP.

I concur. Someone or someones assumed that the American people are so ill informed about world affairs and government responsibilities they could carry this off. It certainly worked for the election, though it seems that many of their informed supporters, recognize that many are not as ignorant at the campaign assumed. They won the election, but they are going to live with the consequences of their own behaviors.

 

[blackhawk]

The righties are pissed off at Obama for apologizing for freedom of speech, at Obama for not sending help, at Rice for lying. There is someone they forgot to be mad at. The fuckers who killed our four Americans in the first place.

What makes you think no one is pissed at them? Aren't you curious as why the administration choose to put out and promote a web video as the reason for the attack and continued to push that for several weeks rather than come out and admit what we all knew this was a terrorist attack?

 

[Annie]

The righties are pissed off at Obama for apologizing for freedom of speech, at Obama for not sending help, at Rice for lying. There is someone they forgot to be mad at. The fuckers who killed our four Americans in the first place.

What makes you think no one is pissed at them? Aren't you curious as why the administration choose to put out and promote a web video as the reason for the attack and continued to push that for several weeks rather than come out and admit what we all knew this was a terrorist attack?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/6379333-post81.html

The number of cynical responses by administration and minions is impressive:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/6379333-post81.html

 

[wavingrl]

The righties are pissed off at Obama for apologizing for freedom of speech, at Obama for not sending help, at Rice for lying. There is someone they forgot to be mad at. The fuckers who killed our four Americans in the first place.

I am neither a Rightie or a Leftie and I am 'not pleased'.

Why shouldn't citizens be able to ask questions and receive truthful answers?

Why make it so difficult?

He did 'promise' Transparency, remember?

 

[wavingrl]

Of course shs's responsible. But not for what was in the report. For being dumb enough to not verify anything she was handed.

mmmm--I don't it was stupidity, wish it could be so simple.

eh---Neal Boortz, libertarian talk show host, frequently reminds listeners that before the previous inauguration, Valerie Jarrett said, 'We will be ready to 'rule'.'

Seems to me that is what is going on. All serve at the pleasure of the POTUS and the 'plan', goals, strategy and whatever had to be explained to all early in the game.

Certainly, I believe Ambassador Rice knew what she was doing. Another commentator said, 'She appeared on 5 talk shows the Sunday after Sept 11th and that means she contacted them.'

???The People are stupid we can 'make this work'???

Please. It didn't work and I am irritated beyond agitation that time and money has to be further wasted to play this little game. If any sort of integrity was involved the response would have been different. I know this. It is one thing on the very day an incident occurs to go on record --'Further fact finding and discovery is necessary...' Then go on record a few days later with as close to accuracy as you can come.

None of that happened. Insult my intelligence, I will not forget and quite possibly never consider forgiving. I don't care ---The Obamas are clearly a nice family---that is good. The kind of 's' that always seems to be flying around is a matter of concern. shrug.

We have investigative journalists who continually tell us how great they are. Then get to digging in the muck and the mire and bring forth the Truth. ASAP.

I concur. Someone or someones assumed that the American people are so ill informed about world affairs and government responsibilities they could carry this off. It certainly worked for the election, though it seems that many of their informed supporters, recognize that many are not as ignorant at the campaign assumed. They won the election, but they are going to live with the consequences of their own behaviors.

agreed. Clinton escaped unscathed, Bill, that is.

This time--I just don't know. I can let my Senator/Representatives know what I would prefer that they do--I can certainly do that. We have no time and no money to fund foolishness or to play around. Is that not clear to the WH? Yet?