Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Looks like whoever leaked this did some editing!!
"The actual e-mail from then-Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes appears to show that whomever leaked it did so in a way that made it appear that the White House was primarily concerned with the State Department's desire to remove references and warnings about specific terrorist groups so as to not bring criticism to the department.'
'Whoever provided those quotes seemingly invented the notion that Rhodes wanted the concerns of the State Department specifically addressed. While Nuland, particularly, had expressed a desire to remove mentions of specific terrorist groups and CIA warnings about the increasingly dangerous assignment, Rhodes put no emphasis at all in his e-mail on the State Department's concerns.
'
CNN exclusive: White House email contradicts Benghazi leaks ? The Lead with Jake Tapper - CNN.com Blogs
Someone will burn for doctoring those emails. That's federal crime shit...
Most conservatives do, that you don't is amazing. But, that's besides the point, he's not the only one that is claiming that Petraeus at first gave credit to the video, and now conservatives want to act like he didn't.
There is no evidence outside the imaginations of conspiracy nuts that Petreaus had anything to do with it. I am not a conspiracy nut, I live in the real world.
That Petraeus had "anything" to do with it? What do you mean by "anything"? Are you claiming that he had nothing to do with the decision on the "talking points"? There is evidence in the e-mails to suggest that he was upset because they took out the statement that made reference to the Cairo protest/video. And it is a known fact that he was aware of what the talking points were, so your claim that he didn't have "anything" to do with is seems a bit suspect.
And, if you believe that Obama had anything to do with a presumed cover-up you don't live in the real world.
There is no evidence outside the imaginations of conspiracy nuts that Petreaus had anything to do with it. I am not a conspiracy nut, I live in the real world.
That Petraeus had "anything" to do with it? What do you mean by "anything"? Are you claiming that he had nothing to do with the decision on the "talking points"? There is evidence in the e-mails to suggest that he was upset because they took out the statement that made reference to the Cairo protest/video. And it is a known fact that he was aware of what the talking points were, so your claim that he didn't have "anything" to do with is seems a bit suspect.
And, if you believe that Obama had anything to do with a presumed cover-up you don't live in the real world.
Link to your claims?
That Petraeus had "anything" to do with it? What do you mean by "anything"? Are you claiming that he had nothing to do with the decision on the "talking points"? There is evidence in the e-mails to suggest that he was upset because they took out the statement that made reference to the Cairo protest/video. And it is a known fact that he was aware of what the talking points were, so your claim that he didn't have "anything" to do with is seems a bit suspect.
And, if you believe that Obama had anything to do with a presumed cover-up you don't live in the real world.
Link to your claims?
I was responding to Windbag. I have provided articles and links to him. If you want to see them go look for them, I'm not going to repost them just because you were late to the party.
Looks like whoever leaked this did some editing!!
"The actual e-mail from then-Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes appears to show that whomever leaked it did so in a way that made it appear that the White House was primarily concerned with the State Department's desire to remove references and warnings about specific terrorist groups so as to not bring criticism to the department.'
'Whoever provided those quotes seemingly invented the notion that Rhodes wanted the concerns of the State Department specifically addressed. While Nuland, particularly, had expressed a desire to remove mentions of specific terrorist groups and CIA warnings about the increasingly dangerous assignment, Rhodes put no emphasis at all in his e-mail on the State Department's concerns.
'
CNN exclusive: White House email contradicts Benghazi leaks ? The Lead with Jake Tapper - CNN.com Blogs
Why don't you answer the question instead of deflecting? What do you mean by anything?There is no evidence outside the imaginations of conspiracy nuts that Petreaus had anything to do with it. I am not a conspiracy nut, I live in the real world.
That Petraeus had "anything" to do with it? What do you mean by "anything"? Are you claiming that he had nothing to do with the decision on the "talking points"? There is evidence in the e-mails to suggest that he was upset because they took out the statement that made reference to the Cairo protest/video. And it is a known fact that he was aware of what the talking points were, so your claim that he didn't have "anything" to do with is seems a bit suspect.
And, if you believe that Obama had anything to do with a presumed cover-up you don't live in the real world.
Let me see if you can grasp a few facts.
And his reason was they were leaving a statement out that made reference to the video.Petraeus has publicly said that he rejected the final version of the talking points.
Do you have a link that verifies that?Petraeus wanted to leave the references to terrorism and Al Qaeda in the talking points.
There was reason to, because according to CIA, they didn't want Al Qaida to know they were on to them.There was no reason not to because the FBI had already determined that it was Al Qeada and not AQIM.
The talking points given to Rice came from CIA with their approval.The final hand edit was done by Ben Rhodes.
And I have shown you that even Rush Limbaugh made mention that Petraeus first blamed it on the video. You may claim you don't like Limbaugh, but even Faux News has stated that Petraeus is doing a 180! So, now tell me that Faux News is lying? I dare you to do so.Rhodes actually signed his own name to that edit.
No one has come forward with any evidence to counter Petraeus's version of the facts.
Petraeus was involved in the putting together the "talking points" - whether you want to admit it or not, there is enough evidence to support it. He admitted it.You keep insisting that Petraeus was directly involved, all I have ever said is that Obama knew the truth and chose to lie. Whether or not he personally rewrote the memos is irrelevant.
The real world? Where you are now denying the things that were said from revered right-wingers, such as Limbaugh and Faux News? Now that, my dear is a real idiot.That, dear idiot, is the real world.
Link to your claims?
I was responding to Windbag. I have provided articles and links to him. If you want to see them go look for them, I'm not going to repost them just because you were late to the party.
Just went thru all your links.
All point to Major Garett's anon source that contradicts proven (and with PDF) material that show Stevens really starting to get spooked and asking for more security.
ergo, you have an opinion based on lies.
Link to your claims?
I was responding to Windbag. I have provided articles and links to him. If you want to see them go look for them, I'm not going to repost them just because you were late to the party.
Just went thru all your links.
All point to Major Garett's anon source that contradicts proven (and with PDF) material that show Stevens really starting to get spooked and asking for more security.
ergo, you have an opinion based on lies.
Why don't you answer the question instead of deflecting? What do you mean by anything?That Petraeus had "anything" to do with it? What do you mean by "anything"? Are you claiming that he had nothing to do with the decision on the "talking points"? There is evidence in the e-mails to suggest that he was upset because they took out the statement that made reference to the Cairo protest/video. And it is a known fact that he was aware of what the talking points were, so your claim that he didn't have "anything" to do with is seems a bit suspect.
And, if you believe that Obama had anything to do with a presumed cover-up you don't live in the real world.
Let me see if you can grasp a few facts.
And his reason was they were leaving a statement out that made reference to the video.
Do you have a link that verifies that?
He wanted more to be said about the demonstrations in Cairo and that they were triggered by anti-Islam video.
Karl's reporting on the issue has ignored the central reason Petraeus said that he didn't like the talking points: he thought they didn't do enough to connect the attacks to demonstrations in Cairo that were triggered by an anti-Islam video.
Why Petraeus Didn't Like The Benghazi Talking Points | Blog | Media Matters for America
There was reason to, because according to CIA, they didn't want Al Qaida to know they were on to them.
The process began in earnest at 4:20 p.m. on Friday, Sept. 14, when Stephen W. Preston, the C.I.A. general counsel, sent an e-mail to other agency officials warning them not to disclose information that might interfere with the F.B.I.s investigation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/16/u...r-benghazi-talking-points.html?pagewanted=all
The talking points given to Rice came from CIA with their approval.
And I have shown you that even Rush Limbaugh made mention that Petraeus first blamed it on the video. You may claim you don't like Limbaugh, but even Faux News has stated that Petraeus is doing a 180! So, now tell me that Faux News is lying? I dare you to do so.
Yet on Friday, September 14, Director of Central Intelligence, General David Petraeus, ignored his chief boot-on-the-ground and briefed the House Intelligence Committee, as described by Vice-Chairman Ruppensberger (D-Md), that the attack was spontaneous.
What happened in those two days that the causal theory turned 180 degrees? Did the now discarded theory belong only to Director of Central Intelligence Petraeus and the CIA? Because on that same day, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chief Vice Chairman Admiral James Whinnefeld, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that they believed the attack was premeditated.
Ambassador Susan Rice fulfilled the quinfecta of all Sunday shows during which she vigorously backed the CIA/ Petraeus position:
Troubling questions in the Benghazi-Petraeus mess | Fox News
Petraeus was involved in the putting together the "talking points" - whether you want to admit it or not, there is enough evidence to support it. He admitted it.You keep insisting that Petraeus was directly involved, all I have ever said is that Obama knew the truth and chose to lie. Whether or not he personally rewrote the memos is irrelevant.
And Obama never said that it was due to a video, so quit your freaking lying unless you can provide a link where Obama ever uttered the words that it was due to a video. Even the Faux News link above shows that Panetta and Joint Chief Vice Chairman were saying it was pre-meditated.
The real world? Where you are now denying the things that were said from revered right-wingers, such as Limbaugh and Faux News? Now that, my dear is a real idiot.That, dear idiot, is the real world.
Looks like whoever leaked this did some editing!!
"The actual e-mail from then-Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes appears to show that whomever leaked it did so in a way that made it appear that the White House was primarily concerned with the State Department's desire to remove references and warnings about specific terrorist groups so as to not bring criticism to the department.'
'Whoever provided those quotes seemingly invented the notion that Rhodes wanted the concerns of the State Department specifically addressed. While Nuland, particularly, had expressed a desire to remove mentions of specific terrorist groups and CIA warnings about the increasingly dangerous assignment, Rhodes put no emphasis at all in his e-mail on the State Department's concerns.
'
CNN exclusive: White House email contradicts Benghazi leaks ? The Lead with Jake Tapper - CNN.com Blogs
What is the source?
Look....This is NOT going away.
The Benghazi incident is a screw up that goes to the highest levels of government.
It is inexcusable. Heads NEED to roll. People need to be fired. Penalties must be issued. Pensions taken away.
Where did you ever get the idea that Obama released all the emails some time back?
He just released ~95 of them today, and they paint an ugly painting of the State Dept and Carny lying for months.
I agree, a special prosecutor for the entire brouhaha, if the conservatives manipulated this into an administrative crisis, there should be sunshine.
If the problem is from the administration, there should be sunshine.
Funny, we're in agreement.
I seriously doubt that the problem is from the administration, since Obama had released all the e-mails to Congress some time back. Either ABC misquoted one of them, or was given the wrong info on it. It's pretty clear that Obama is in the clear, even though the rightwing keeps insisting that he isn't.
I seriously doubt you would know the truth if it slapped you in the face. The major problem with your version, other than the fact that Obama did not release the emails, is that the emails released today actually prove that ABC got the story right.
OMG, this is worse than Watergate!
Higher-Ups Knew of IRS Case - WSJ.comHigher-Ups Knew of IRS Case
The Internal Revenue Service's watchdog told top Treasury officials around June 2012 he was investigating allegations the tax agency had targeted conservative groups, for the first time indicating that Obama administration officials were aware of the explosive matter in the midst of the president's re-election campaign.
OMG, this is worse than Watergate!
Still waiting on a body count from Watergate,,,
Still waiting for proof that the President was involved in Benghazi cover up, as was Nixon in Watergate!
4 people died and many others wounded due to negligence in the highest levels of the Administration and all these people can dig up for spin is some bullshit about 'emails'.There is no evidence outside the imaginations of conspiracy nuts that Petreaus had anything to do with it. I am not a conspiracy nut, I live in the real world.
That Petraeus had "anything" to do with it? What do you mean by "anything"? Are you claiming that he had nothing to do with the decision on the "talking points"? There is evidence in the e-mails to suggest that he was upset because they took out the statement that made reference to the Cairo protest/video. And it is a known fact that he was aware of what the talking points were, so your claim that he didn't have "anything" to do with is seems a bit suspect.
And, if you believe that Obama had anything to do with a presumed cover-up you don't live in the real world.
Let me see if you can grasp a few facts.
You keep insisting that Petraeus was directly involved, all I have ever said is that Obama knew the truth and chose to lie. Whether or not he personally rewrote the memos is irrelevant.
- Petraeus has publicly said that he rejected the final version of the talking points.
- Petraeus wanted to leave the references to terrorism and Al Qaeda in the talking points.
- There was no reason not to because the FBI had already determined that it was Al Qeada and not AQIM.
- The final hand edit was done by Ben Rhodes.
- Rhodes actually signed his own name to that edit.
- No one has come forward with any evidence to counter Petraeus's version of the facts.
That, dear idiot, is the real world.
What is sad is four people are dead and all you care about is as long as Obama and his closest insiders are protected, all is well.Why don't you answer the question instead of deflecting? What do you mean by anything?That Petraeus had "anything" to do with it? What do you mean by "anything"? Are you claiming that he had nothing to do with the decision on the "talking points"? There is evidence in the e-mails to suggest that he was upset because they took out the statement that made reference to the Cairo protest/video. And it is a known fact that he was aware of what the talking points were, so your claim that he didn't have "anything" to do with is seems a bit suspect.
And, if you believe that Obama had anything to do with a presumed cover-up you don't live in the real world.
Let me see if you can grasp a few facts.
And his reason was they were leaving a statement out that made reference to the video.
Do you have a link that verifies that?
He wanted more to be said about the demonstrations in Cairo and that they were triggered by anti-Islam video.
Karl's reporting on the issue has ignored the central reason Petraeus said that he didn't like the talking points: he thought they didn't do enough to connect the attacks to demonstrations in Cairo that were triggered by an anti-Islam video.
Why Petraeus Didn't Like The Benghazi Talking Points | Blog | Media Matters for America
There was reason to, because according to CIA, they didn't want Al Qaida to know they were on to them.
The process began in earnest at 4:20 p.m. on Friday, Sept. 14, when Stephen W. Preston, the C.I.A. general counsel, sent an e-mail to other agency officials warning them not to disclose information that might interfere with the F.B.I.s investigation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/16/us/politics/e-mails-show-jostling-over-benghazi-talking-points.html?pagewanted=all
The talking points given to Rice came from CIA with their approval.
And I have shown you that even Rush Limbaugh made mention that Petraeus first blamed it on the video. You may claim you don't like Limbaugh, but even Faux News has stated that Petraeus is doing a 180! So, now tell me that Faux News is lying? I dare you to do so.
Yet on Friday, September 14, Director of Central Intelligence, General David Petraeus, ignored his chief boot-on-the-ground and briefed the House Intelligence Committee, as described by Vice-Chairman Ruppensberger (D-Md), that the attack was spontaneous.
What happened in those two days that the causal theory turned 180 degrees? Did the now discarded theory belong only to Director of Central Intelligence Petraeus and the CIA? Because on that same day, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chief Vice Chairman Admiral James Whinnefeld, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that they believed the attack was premeditated.
Ambassador Susan Rice fulfilled the quinfecta of all Sunday shows during which she vigorously backed the CIA/ Petraeus position:
Troubling questions in the Benghazi-Petraeus mess | Fox News
Petraeus was involved in the putting together the "talking points" - whether you want to admit it or not, there is enough evidence to support it. He admitted it.You keep insisting that Petraeus was directly involved, all I have ever said is that Obama knew the truth and chose to lie. Whether or not he personally rewrote the memos is irrelevant.
And Obama never said that it was due to a video, so quit your freaking lying unless you can provide a link where Obama ever uttered the words that it was due to a video. Even the Faux News link above shows that Panetta and Joint Chief Vice Chairman were saying it was pre-meditated.
The real world? Where you are now denying the things that were said from revered right-wingers, such as Limbaugh and Faux News? Now that, my dear is a real idiot.That, dear idiot, is the real world.
Do you understand the difference between "Presented to Congress" and "Released to Congress?"
Would you like a link to the emails so you can quote from them to show us how ABC got them wrong?
Ha,ha,ha! So now you are going to use semantics, just like the GOP used regarding "terrorist attacks" not being the same as "act of terror" - you are a piece of work indeed.
It doesn't matter if he presented them or released them. The Congressional investigators were able to view them, it's not like he was keeping the e-mails from them.
The Obama administration had up to now declined to make the documents public and had only let congressional investigators review the documents without making copies.
White House Releases Emails On Benghazi Attack
As for ABC getting it wrong, they need to respond to CNN.
CNN debunks ABCs Benghazi scoop with new email evidence
The actual email, from then-Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes, has turned out to be nothing of the sort, undermining the thrust of ABCs story and the reasoning behind the latest hearings about Benghazi.
Last Friday, ABC claimed that the White House had rewritten the talking points on the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi twelve times and has scrubbed them of any references to terrorism.
The news organization breathlessly reported that, according to a source, the talking points were massaged to protect the interests of the White House, the CIA and the State Department, in particular those of then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The Weekly Standard also published portions of an email that appeared damning to Clinton.
The actual e-mail (from Rhodes) appears to show that whomever leaked it did so in a way that made it appear that the White House was primarily concerned with the State Departments desire to remove references and warnings about specific terrorist groups so as to not bring criticism to the department, Tapper wrote Tuesday.
Salons Joan Walsh wrote, Significantly, the Rhodes email doesnt even mention the controversial Benghazi talking points. Reporting by Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard paraphrased Rhodes email the same way to depict him jumping in behind Nuland and protecting the interests of the State Department.
According to Tapper, Whoever provided those quotes seemingly invented the notion that Rhodes wanted the concerns of the State Department specifically addressed.
The source for the ABC and Standard stories also singled out State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland as being particularly demanding with regard to assuring that her leadership would not look negligent or inattentive to warnings signs and signals leading up to the attack. Tapper said that upon viewing the full email chain, Nuland was merely one of many officials expressing concerns about how their agencies would be viewed by the public.
Further, Walsh posited, Presumably, someone changed Rhodes email before leaking it to Karl, but ABC News hasnt replied to the scoop by Tapper (who used to work there).
CNN debunks ABC?s Benghazi ?scoop? with new email evidence | The Raw Story
Quick question, oh mighty idiot, if Obama actually released the emails to Congress why are they still asking for the emails? Did they not get the same memo you did?
