Lyndsey Graham Who Was Directly Lied To Says House Benghazi Report Full of C R A P

[NotfooledbyW]

Billc 10249550

they lied that the attack was spontaneous

No they didnt. The CIA's original assessment was that there was a spontaneous demonstration similar to the protests in Cairo. They would have been lying if they contradicted the CIA talking points on their own. Susan Rice repeated the CIA talking points verbatim. That was her job on the Sunday news shows.

 

[rdean]

I hate to burst your bubble, R-Derp but Barack Obama's legislative record in the Illinois Senate was so bad before Emile Jones took him under his wing that he hadn't had a single bill he wrote passed into law since he became a Senator. Jones fed Obama the work of other Democratic legislators and let him sign his name onto that work. All the things you named from above? That was the work of someone else that Barry just signed his name to.

2000-2003, Illinois State Senate
Obama during this time passed a bill to put limits on racial profiling and place cameras in police interrogation rooms. [12] These bills, including the racial profiling bill originally worked on by Senator Rickey Hendon, had been previously the efforts of other Senators. Nonetheless, Obama struck a deal with then-head of the Illinois Senate, Emil Jones, in a well-recorded conversation asking Jones to make him a U.S. Senator, following which, Jones appointed him head of prominent, headline-grabbing legislation worked on by other Senators to raise his political profile, and had him craft legislation to meet major tragedies in the news.[13]

As Houston Press reporter Todd Spivak would note:

"But what's interesting, and almost never discussed, is that he built his entire legislative record in Illinois in a single year... Jones appointed Obama sponsor of virtually every high-profile piece of legislation, angering many rank-and-file state legislators who had more seniority than Obama and had spent years championing the bills... During his seventh and final year in the state Senate, Obama's stats soared. He sponsored a whopping 26 bills passed into law — including many he now cites in his presidential campaign when attacked as inexperienced. It was a stunning achievement that started him on the path of national politics — and he couldn't have done it without Jones. Before Obama ran for U.S. Senate in 2004, he was virtually unknown even in his own state. Polls showed fewer than 20 percent of Illinois voters had ever heard of Barack Obama. Jones further helped raise Obama's profile by having him craft legislation addressing the day-to-day tragedies that dominated local news headlines."[14]"
Spivak quotes another Illinois Senator, Rickey Hendon, as saying,

"I took all the beatings and insults and endured all the racist comments over the years from nasty Republican committee chairmen, Barack didn't have to endure any of it, yet, in the end, he got all the credit. I don't consider it bill jacking, but no one wants to carry the ball 99 yards all the way to the one-yard line, and then give it to the halfback who gets all the credit and the stats in the record book."
Barack Obama - SourceWatch

During his seventh and final year in the state Senate, Obama's stats soared. He sponsored a whopping 26 bills passed into law — including many he now cites in his presidential campaign when attacked as inexperienced. It was a stunning achievement that started him on the path of national politics

So you are saying the more experience he had the better he got. That makes sense to me.

 

[rdean]

Here is a list of the 152 bills Obama sponsored or co sponsored while in the Senate directly from the Library of Congress.

Bill Summary Status Search Results - THOMAS Library of Congress

No wonder Republicans hate Obama. Remember when he kicked GOP ass when invited to their retreat?

Fact-checking Obama and Republicans at GOP retreat PolitiFact

You had a smart guy against a bunch of morons. The smart guy "won". That's all.

 

[rdean]

Who would be stupid enough to believe anything Linda Graham said after she completely invented a military career from scratch?

 

[2aguy]

No they didnt. The CIA's original assessment was that there was a spontaneous demonstration similar to the protests in Cairo.

Sorry...they new from the start it was an organized attack...

 

[2aguy]

Perhaps you should ask Leon Panetta about that...

The PJ Tatler Panetta I Immediately Knew that Benghazi Was a Terrorist Attack

Panetta fired: “I didn’t have any specific information, but the fact was that when you bring grenade launchers to a demonstration, something else is going on. From the very beginning I sensed that this was an attack, a terrorist attack on the compound. I remember saying look, based on the ones I see and the nature of the attack, I think this was a terrorist attack. He said look, the information we are getting from intelligence sources is that it really was a demonstration. I said you know, David, i don’t see it that way.”

And this...

The Benghazi Transcripts Top Defense officials briefed Obama on attack not video or protest Fox News

Rep. Brad Wenstrup, R-Ohio, a first-term lawmaker with experience as an Iraq war veteran and Army reserve officer, pressed Ham further on the point, prodding the 29-year Army veteran to admit that "the nature of the conversation" he had with Panetta and Dempsey was that "this was a terrorist attack."

So....before obama spoke, or hilary spoke to the families, they knew it wasn't a spontaneous attack...

What was the ambassador doing there with almost no security....in an al queda area, of a radical muslim country....?

 

[Oldstyle]

I hate to burst your bubble, R-Derp but Barack Obama's legislative record in the Illinois Senate was so bad before Emile Jones took him under his wing that he hadn't had a single bill he wrote passed into law since he became a Senator. Jones fed Obama the work of other Democratic legislators and let him sign his name onto that work. All the things you named from above? That was the work of someone else that Barry just signed his name to.

2000-2003, Illinois State Senate
Obama during this time passed a bill to put limits on racial profiling and place cameras in police interrogation rooms. [12] These bills, including the racial profiling bill originally worked on by Senator Rickey Hendon, had been previously the efforts of other Senators. Nonetheless, Obama struck a deal with then-head of the Illinois Senate, Emil Jones, in a well-recorded conversation asking Jones to make him a U.S. Senator, following which, Jones appointed him head of prominent, headline-grabbing legislation worked on by other Senators to raise his political profile, and had him craft legislation to meet major tragedies in the news.[13]

As Houston Press reporter Todd Spivak would note:

"But what's interesting, and almost never discussed, is that he built his entire legislative record in Illinois in a single year... Jones appointed Obama sponsor of virtually every high-profile piece of legislation, angering many rank-and-file state legislators who had more seniority than Obama and had spent years championing the bills... During his seventh and final year in the state Senate, Obama's stats soared. He sponsored a whopping 26 bills passed into law — including many he now cites in his presidential campaign when attacked as inexperienced. It was a stunning achievement that started him on the path of national politics — and he couldn't have done it without Jones. Before Obama ran for U.S. Senate in 2004, he was virtually unknown even in his own state. Polls showed fewer than 20 percent of Illinois voters had ever heard of Barack Obama. Jones further helped raise Obama's profile by having him craft legislation addressing the day-to-day tragedies that dominated local news headlines."[14]"
Spivak quotes another Illinois Senator, Rickey Hendon, as saying,

"I took all the beatings and insults and endured all the racist comments over the years from nasty Republican committee chairmen, Barack didn't have to endure any of it, yet, in the end, he got all the credit. I don't consider it bill jacking, but no one wants to carry the ball 99 yards all the way to the one-yard line, and then give it to the halfback who gets all the credit and the stats in the record book."
Barack Obama - SourceWatch

During his seventh and final year in the state Senate, Obama's stats soared. He sponsored a whopping 26 bills passed into law — including many he now cites in his presidential campaign when attacked as inexperienced. It was a stunning achievement that started him on the path of national politics

So you are saying the more experience he had the better he got. That makes sense to me.

No, I'm simply pointing out what a complete abysmal failure Barack Obama was as a legislator in the Illinois State Senate for six whole years...passing not a single piece of legislation that he sponsored. So what do you think happened in that seventh year, R-Derp? Are you really naive and think Barry finally figured it out and became SUPER LEGISLATOR! Or are you smart enough to realize what happened that seventh year was Emile Jones decided to "make a US Senator"?

 

[Oldstyle]

Here is a list of the 152 bills Obama sponsored or co sponsored while in the Senate directly from the Library of Congress.

Bill Summary Status Search Results - THOMAS Library of Congress

No wonder Republicans hate Obama. Remember when he kicked GOP ass when invited to their retreat?

Fact-checking Obama and Republicans at GOP retreat PolitiFact

You had a smart guy against a bunch of morons. The smart guy "won". That's all.

You still haven't figured it out...have you, R-Derp? The reason that Obama is so bad at doing the job of President is that he's really not that smart at all. The "smart guy" that you progressives promised the country we would be getting never existed. We got "Affirmative Action Barry" The sad truth is that if it wasn't for other Democrats feeding Obama bills to sign he wouldn't have been any better at legislating in the US Senate then he was for the first six years he was in the Illinois State Senate.

 

[Oldstyle]

OS 10249195

You're amusing, Notfooled! What exactly is an "original...revised draft"?

If you dont know what you are talking about you shouldnt comment on it as if you did. That is from the released emails on the CIA talking points. Apparently the CiA produced a draft among themselves and revised it among themselves before sending it to the White House. The point is that the phrase "spontaneous demonstration" came from the CIA with no editing by Secretary Clinton or anyone else in the Administration. Rightwing accusations regarding the editing process are exaggerated and false.

That is a total misrepresentation of what happened. The following is from ABC News...

"After months of demands from Republicans in Congress, the White House has released emails related to what the administration said in the days after the terrorist attack in Benghazi.

The emails confirm the ABC News report that the so-called "talking points" written by the CIA on the attack underwent extensive revisions – 12 versions – and that substantial changes were made after the State Department expressed concerns.

The early versions of the talking points, drafted entirely by the CIA, included references to the al Qaeda affiliate Ansar al-Sharia and to previous CIA warnings about terror threats in Benghazi. State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland expressed concerns about including those references in the talking points.

In one email, previously reported by ABC News, Nuland said that including the CIA warnings "could be used by Members [of Congress] to beat the State Department for not paying attention to Agency warnings so why do we want to feed that? Concerned …"

After some changes were made, Nuland was still not satisfied.

"These don't resolve all my issues or those of my building leadership," Nuland wrote.

Read the Benghazi emails here

A senior administration official said that Deputy CIA Director Mike Morrell agreed with Nuland's concerns and made the changes himself. There is no email record, however, showing that Morrell shared Nuland's concerns.

All 12 versions of the talking points, as previously reported by ABC News, say that the attack in Benghazi was "spontaneously inspired by protest in Cairo." In other words, all the talk of protests – which proved to be wrong – started with the CIA. What did get removed was the CIA's saying that it believed Ansar al-Sharia took part in the attack and that the CIA had warned of the terror threat.

Republicans have extensively criticized U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice for indicating, in a TV appearance after the attacks, demonstrations outside the Benghazi diplomatic facility had spawned the attack. The White House has repeatedly maintained that Rice used intelligence-community talking points that represented the administration's best knowledge of what had happened. White House press secretary Jay Carney has maintained that the intelligence community drafted the talking points and that White House staff only made cosmetic and stylistic changes to them.

But emails show that the State Department had also raised concerns about mentions that the CIA had produced material -- before the attack -- on the threat of al-Qaeda-linked extremists in Benghazi. In addition, State expressed concerns about pointing to Ansar al Sharia before the FBI/Justice Department had concluded its investigation of the attack.

"I'm with Toria," wrote then Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs David S. Adams, agreeing with Nuland's concerns about a section on the CIA's intelligence on Benghazi extremists. "That last bullet especially will read to members [of Congress] like we had been repeatedly warned."

Another email, with the sender's name redacted, indicates concern about accuracy that the CIA "warned" about calls for jihadists to storm the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, a word that was originally included in the CIA's talking points. CIA press official Shawn Turner expressed the same concern about the word. "I've been very careful not to say we issued a warning," Turner wrote, before State Department officials raised its concerns.

The newly released emails provide a fuller picture of the discussion among federal departments, the intelligence community and the White House about Benghazi. Throughout the drafting process, intelligence officials had included the idea that the Benghazi attack was spawned by a spontaneous demonstration.

The first of three talking points in the final version read: "The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US Consulate and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations." Similar language topped all drafts of the Benghazi talking points.

Then Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes urged the participants of the email chain to sort out their differences over the talking points with each department's interests in mind. In "a draft note to the DIRECTOR," intelligence officials appear to have identified the State Department as driving the changes to the CIA's drafts.

"The White House cleared quickly, but State has major concerns," an official, whose name was redacted, wrote.

In the end, administration officials signed off on major changes to the talking points. One email includes handwritten edits in which sections of the talking points were crossed out. According to a senior administration official, the handwriting is Morrell's.

The following sections were crossed out and removed from later drafts:

• "On 10 September the Agency notified Embassy Cairo of social media reports calling for a demonstration and encouraging jihadists to break into the Embassy."
  
  
• "... as to who is responsible for the violence, although the crowd almost certainly was a mix of individuals. That being said, there are indications that Islamic extremists participated in the violent demonstrations."
  
  
• "The wide availability of weapons and experienced fighters in Libya almost certainly contributed to the lethality of the attacks."
  
  
• "The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al-Qaeda in Benghazi and eastern Libya. Since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interest in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador's convoy. We cannot rule out that individuals had previously surveilled the US facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks."

One official, whose name was redacted from the email chain, responded to the changes: "They are fine with me. But, pretty sure HPSCI won't like them " HPSCI refers to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, members of which had requested the talking points.

 

[Oldstyle]

What bothers me is the total ignorance of someone like Notfooled on this issue. How can ANYONE not know at this point that there were multiple revisions of the original CIA talking points by both the White House and the State Department?

 

[Oldstyle]

What he refers to as the "Original...revised copy" of the CIA talking points is actually the 12th draft of the original copy of the CIA talking points and Jay Carney was lying through his teeth when he claimed that only one word was changed and that for "stylistic" reasons!

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Sorry...they new from the start it was an organized attack.

The CIA talking points are what we must go by and the released White House emails show that the CIA's original assessment was there wad a spontaneous demonstration that evolved into an assault by heavily armed extremists.

NF 10248982

ORIGINAL CIA revised draft of TALKING POINTS (9/14/12 04:42 PM We believe based on currently available information that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex. This assessment may change as additional information is collected and analyzed and currently available information continues to be evaluated

I don't know where you are getting your info that CIA knew immediately it was an organized attack, because the initial talking point email to the White House didn't say that. We must assume you heard it from right wing propagandists and didn't bother to fact check it.

 

[Oldstyle]

Would you PLEASE stop quoting the "original CIA revised draft of talking points"! Do you not grasp that what you keep bringing up is the result of 12 redrafts of the original talking points? Just how stupid ARE you?

 

[Oldstyle]

The painful truth if you're an Obama or Hillary fan is that both the White House and the State Department altered the CIA talking points for political reasons. It's right there in black and white! You can read what they objected to and wanted removed in their emails...emails that the Obama White House tried desperately to hide from Congress.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The painful truth if you're an Obama or Hillary fan is that both the White House and the State Department altered the CIA talking points for political reasons. It's right there in black and white! You can read what they objected to and wanted removed in their emails...emails that the Obama White House tried desperately to hide from Congress.

BS, plain and simple. I've read them, they went where the information pointed. Only right-wing partisans disagree.

 

[Vigilante]

Exclusive Rep. Smith debates Benghazi Annex Security Team Hannity Fox News

 

[NotfooledbyW]

How can ANYONE not know at this point that there were multiple revisions of the original CIA talking points by both the White House and the State Department?

I know exactly the sequence of revisions that the CIA Talking Point emails went through. All you have to do is read them from right here:

White House Benghazi Emails by margafret

I studied all the CIA talking point Emails when they came out. And the most interesting thing is that the link you provide in your post # 10250115 summarizes it very well and verifies the exact point I have been making. Since you must not bother to read even the links you post, I will show you that the ABC Report you claim to be quoting actually proves the point I have been telling all you right wing fact distortion artists all along on Benghazi.

"All 12 versions of the talking points, as previously reported by ABC News, say that the attack in Benghazi was "spontaneously inspired by protest in Cairo."

10250115

All 12 versions of the talking points, as previously reported by ABC News, say that the attack in Benghazi was "spontaneously inspired by protest in Cairo." In other words, all the talk of protests – which proved to be wrong – started with the CIA. What did get removed was the CIA's saying that it believed Ansar al-Sharia took part in the attack and that the CIA had warned of the terror threat.

Maybe if I repeat it enough times like Rush Limbaugh does for all you ditto-heads - it will sink in. Remember this comes from the ABC report you posted without giving an actual link.

"All 12 versions of the talking points, as previously reported by ABC News, say that the attack in Benghazi was "spontaneously inspired by protest in Cairo."

"All 12 versions of the talking points, as previously reported by ABC News, say that the attack in Benghazi was "spontaneously inspired by protest in Cairo."

"All 12 versions of the talking points, as previously reported by ABC News, say that the attack in Benghazi was "spontaneously inspired by protest in Cairo."

"All 12 versions of the talking points, as previously reported by ABC News, say that the attack in Benghazi was "spontaneously inspired by protest in Cairo."

"All 12 versions of the talking points, as previously reported by ABC News, say that the attack in Benghazi was "spontaneously inspired by protest in Cairo."

"All 12 versions of the talking points, as previously reported by ABC News, say that the attack in Benghazi was "spontaneously inspired by protest in Cairo."

Let me know if you still do not know what the above statement means to your bogus argument that the White House and State Department inserted the "spontaneously inspired by protest in Cairo." as a means to 'blame the video for the attacks instead of terrorists.

If you still don't know - try reading this part of the ABC report that you cited in your post # 10250115:


In other words, all the talk of protests – which proved to be wrong – started with the CIA.

I'll repeat it for you:

In other words, all the talk of protests – which proved to be wrong – started with the CIA.

And that is EXACTLY what I have been telling you.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

NF 10249604

Apparently the CiA produced a draft among themselves and revised it among themselves before sending it to the White House. The point is that the phrase "spontaneous demonstration" came from the CIA with no editing by Secretary Clinton or anyone else in the Administration.

Further proof that you didn't read and fully comprehend the ABC report that you cited, is your response to the above with this stunning agreement with what I said:

OS 10250115

All 12 versions of the talking points, as previously reported by ABC News, say that the attack in Benghazi was "spontaneously inspired by protest in Cairo." In other words, all the talk of protests – which proved to be wrong – started with the CIA. .

and this...

OS 10250115

Throughout the drafting process, intelligence officials had included the idea that the Benghazi attack was spawned by a spontaneous demonstration. .

and this...

OS 10250115

The first of three talking points in the final version read: "The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US Consulate and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations." Similar language topped all drafts of the Benghazi talking points..

 

[NYcarbineer]

Maybe a quick trip down memory lane, re Lindsey Graham and Libya, is in order.

This guy wanted many more Americans killed in Libya, here's what he said in 2011:

"One of the problems I have with “leading from behind” is that when a day like this comes, we don’t have the infrastructure in place that we could have. I’m glad it ended the way it did. It took longer than it should have. If we could have kept American air power in the fight it would have been over quicker. Sixty-thousand Libyans have been wounded, 3,000 maimed, 25,000 killed.

Let’s get in on the ground. There is a lot of money to be made in the future in Libya. Lot of oil to be produced. Let’s get on the ground and help the Libyan people establish a democracy and a functioning economy based on free market principles."

Lindsey Graham Let s Get In On The Ground. There s A Lot Of Money To Be Made In The Future Of Libya ThinkProgress

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Mojo 10222964

You send as much help as you can the moment you know it's needed!

So when five mortar rounds were fired at the CIA Annex and killing Woods and Doherty, (an attack that lasted 11 minutes) was there any US military strike force that could be deployed that could destroy every potential mortar launch site in a surrounding urban setting of a city with a population of half a million people? Get real right wing armchair 20/20 hindsight generals, what is available as an immediate response strike force that could clear a city of 500,000 of all mortar launch sites within a few minutes of the first of five mortar rounds being fired over an 11 minute period?