New Benghazi E-mails Link White House to Doctoring of Talking Points

[tinydancer]

It doesn't? So when Bush called 9/11 an act of terror he was denying it was a terrorist attack?

Can you describe an act of terror involving armed men killing civilians for a political/ideological cause that was not a terrorist attack?

Or vice versa?

Acts of terror can be as insignificant as a threat of violence, not an act of violence. You can point a gun in someone's face and never pull the trigger, thus it's an 'act of terror' not a 'terrorist attack.' Bin Laden planned the attack, hence 'act of terror.' The men who flew the planes into the buildings? That's a 'terrorist attack.'

Kapische?

Ah the nuances of the English lexicon.

You idiot. As was posted, Bush called the actual flying of the planes into the buildings an act of terror.

Which of you is full of shit? You or Bush?

You must be feeling very masochistic today.

The Pinocchio Test

During the campaign, the president could just get away with claiming he said “act of terror,” since he did use those words — though not in the way he often claimed.

It seemed like a bit of after-the-fact spin, but those were his actual words — to the surprise of Mitt Romney in the debate.

But the president’s claim that he said “act of terrorism” is taking revisionist history too far, given that he repeatedly refused to commit to that phrase when asked directly by reporters in the weeks after the attack.

He appears to have gone out of his way to avoid saying it was a terrorist attack, so he has little standing to make that claim now.

Indeed, the initial unedited talking points did not call it an act of terrorism. Instead of pretending the right words were uttered, it would be far better to acknowledge that he was echoing what the intelligence community believed at the time--and that the administration’s phrasing could have been clearer and more forthright from the start.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...b65b83e-bc14-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_blog.html

 

[TemplarKormac]

You idiot. As was posted, Bush called the actual flying of the planes into the buildings an act of terror.

Which of you is full of shit? You or Bush?

As with paperview, you are now resorting to ad hominem. A clear sign you cannot make it though a debate without resorting to playground antics. The one 'full of shit' here is you.

Obama's claim he called Benghazi an 'act of terrorism' - The Washington Post

Don't dodge the issue. Was Bush wrong to call 9/11 an act of terror? It's a simple yes or no,

or, refusal to answer, which translates to no, he wasn't wrong, which then translates to,

neither was Obama.

You've admitted, btw, that Benghazi was an act of terror above.

Actually, you're the one dodging by constantly referring to Bush. Hypocrite much?

 

[TemplarKormac]

[MENTION=25451]tinydancer[/MENTION]

I've already ripped at least a half dozen liberals on this board to shreds over this. Carbine and paper suffered the worst of it all.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Running interference again for NYc?

He is a big boy and do the 'Mission Impossible' thingy.

.

Do you have evidence that Susan Rice, speaking for the administration, retracted the President's calling it an act of terror?

Lousy talking point. Give me a break.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/rw/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/fact-checker/StandingArt/pinocchio_4.jpg?uuid=zmHlfEniEeCn1tWe_T6KGA[/IMG[/QUOTE]

No that's just you having to admit that Susan Rice never contradicted the president's characterization of the Benghazi attack as an act of terror.

 

[tinydancer]

But wait there's more....

“The day after it happened, I acknowledged that this was an act of terrorism.”

— President Obama, remarks at a news conference, May 13, 2013

Once again, it appears that we must parse a few presidential words. We went through this question at length during the 2012 election, but perhaps a refresher course is in order.

Notably, during a debate with Republican nominee Mitt Romney, President Obama said that he immediately told the American people that the killing of the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans in Libya “was an act of terror.” But now he says he called it “an act of terrorism.”

Some readers may object to this continuing focus on words, but presidential aides spend a lot of time on words. Words have consequences. Is there a difference between “act of terror” and “act of terrorism”?

The Facts

Immediately after the attack, the president three times used the phrase “act of terror” in public statements:

“No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.”

— Obama, Rose Garden, Sept. 12

“We want to send a message all around the world — anybody who would do us harm: No act of terror will dim the light of the values that we proudly shine on the rest of the world, and no act of violence will shake the resolve of the United States of America.”

— Obama, campaign event in Las Vegas, Sept. 13

“I want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished. It will not dim the light of the values that we proudly present to the rest of the world. No act of violence shakes the resolve of the United States of America.”

— Obama, campaign event in Golden, Colo., Sept. 13

Here’s how we assessed those words back in October:

Note that in all three cases, the language is not as strong as Obama asserted in the debate. Obama declared that he said “that this was an act of terror.” But actually the president spoke in vague terms, usually wrapped in a patriotic fervor. One could presume he was speaking of the incident in Libya, but he did not affirmatively state that the American ambassador died because of an “act of terror.”

Some readers may think we are dancing on the head of pin here. The Fact Checker spent nine years as diplomatic correspondent for The Washington Post, and such nuances of phrasing are often very important. A president does not simply utter virtually the same phrase three times in two days about a major international incident without careful thought about the implications of each word.

 

[depotoo]

Did he ever once try to blame it on something it was not? And quit ignoring me.

It doesn't? So when Bush called 9/11 an act of terror he was denying it was a terrorist attack?

Can you describe an act of terror involving armed men killing civilians for a political/ideological cause that was not a terrorist attack?

Or vice versa?

Acts of terror can be as insignificant as a threat of violence, not an act of violence. You can point a gun in someone's face and never pull the trigger, thus it's an 'act of terror' not a 'terrorist attack.' Bin Laden planned the attack, hence 'act of terror.' The men who flew the planes into the buildings? That's a 'terrorist attack.'

Kapische?

Ah the nuances of the English lexicon.

You idiot. As was posted, Bush called the actual flying of the planes into the buildings an act of terror.

Which of you is full of shit? You or Bush?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The President called it a terrorist attack the day after it happened.

All of your bullshit was debunked years ago. I realize you're late to this party because you're now trying belatedly to earn your rightwing nut new member badge, but jesus, listen to yourself.

But then his administration sent Susan Rice out to contradict him in 5 different appearances that following Sunday.

Listen to yourself. Nothing of mine has been debunked. I appear to be the one posting all the links, facts, evidence and testimony. Not you. Besides, the Washington Post debunked that claim of yours a long time ago:

During the campaign, the president could just get away with claiming he said “act of terror,” since he did use those words — though not in the way he often claimed. It seemed like a bit of after-the-fact spin, but those were his actual words — to the surprise of Mitt Romney in the debate.


But the president’s claim that he said “act of terrorism” is taking revisionist history too far, given that he repeatedly refused to commit to that phrase when asked directly by reporters in the weeks after the attack. He appears to have gone out of his way to avoid saying it was a terrorist attack, so he has little standing to make that claim now.



Indeed, the initial unedited talking points did not call it an act of terrorism. Instead of pretending the right words were uttered, it would be far better to acknowledge that he was echoing what the intelligence community believed at the time--and that the administration’s phrasing could have been clearer and more forthright from the start.

Obama's claim he called Benghazi an 'act of terrorism' - The Washington Post

The President called it an act of terror the day after it happened.

You have to be mentally retarded to dispute that, or mentally retarded even more to claim that an 'act of terror' is not synonymous with a 'terrorist act'.

But, by all means, proceed.

He didn't actually call it a terror attack and then he send his minions out to blame it on a viseo

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The President called it a terrorist attack the day after it happened.

All of your bullshit was debunked years ago. I realize you're late to this party because you're now trying belatedly to earn your rightwing nut new member badge, but jesus, listen to yourself.

But then his administration sent Susan Rice out to contradict him in 5 different appearances that following Sunday.

Listen to yourself. Nothing of mine has been debunked. I appear to be the one posting all the links, facts, evidence and testimony. Not you. Besides, the Washington Post debunked that claim of yours a long time ago:

During the campaign, the president could just get away with claiming he said “act of terror,” since he did use those words — though not in the way he often claimed. It seemed like a bit of after-the-fact spin, but those were his actual words — to the surprise of Mitt Romney in the debate.


But the president’s claim that he said “act of terrorism” is taking revisionist history too far, given that he repeatedly refused to commit to that phrase when asked directly by reporters in the weeks after the attack. He appears to have gone out of his way to avoid saying it was a terrorist attack, so he has little standing to make that claim now.



Indeed, the initial unedited talking points did not call it an act of terrorism. Instead of pretending the right words were uttered, it would be far better to acknowledge that he was echoing what the intelligence community believed at the time--and that the administration’s phrasing could have been clearer and more forthright from the start.

Obama's claim he called Benghazi an 'act of terrorism' - The Washington Post

The President called it an act of terror the day after it happened.

You have to be mentally retarded to dispute that, or mentally retarded even more to claim that an 'act of terror' is not synonymous with a 'terrorist act'.

But, by all means, proceed.

He didn't actually call it a terror attack and then he send his minions out to blame it on a video

 

[TemplarKormac]

Do you have evidence that Susan Rice, speaking for the administration, retracted the President's calling it an act of terror?

Lousy talking point. Give me a break.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/rw/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/fact-checker/StandingArt/pinocchio_4.jpg?uuid=zmHlfEniEeCn1tWe_T6KGA[/IMG[/quote]

No that's just you having to admit that Susan Rice never contradicted the president's characterization of the Benghazi attack as an act of terror.[/QUOTE]

NOW you're simply desperate. She went on 5 different networks and said "it was the video, not an act of terror."

 

[Mustang]

Well, well, well. What do we have here? It appears that the narrative of Benghazi being a "spontaneous protest brought on by a video" was the work of none other than White House officials.

Newly released emails on the Benghazi terror attack suggest a senior White House aide played a central role in preparing former U.N. ambassador Susan Rice for her controversial Sunday show appearances -- where she wrongly blamed protests over an Internet video.

More than 100 pages of documents were released to the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. Among them was a Sept. 14, 2012, email from Ben Rhodes, an assistant to the president and deputy national security adviser for strategic communications.

The Rhodes email, with the subject line: "RE: PREP Call with Susan: Saturday at 4:00 pm ET," was sent to a dozen members of the administration's inner circle, including key members of the White House communications team such as Press Secretary Jay Carney.

In the email, Rhodes specifically draws attention to the anti-Islam Internet video, without distinguishing whether the Benghazi attack was different from protests elsewhere.

The email lists the following two goals, among others:

"To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy."

"To reinforce the President and Administration's strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges."

The email goes on to state that the U.S. government rejected the message of the Internet video. "We find it disgusting and reprehensible. But there is absolutely no justification at all for responding to this movie with violence," the email stated

Benghazi emails suggest White House aide involved in prepping Rice for ?video? explanation | Fox News

The word "doctoring" is completely misleading here.

Definition: to tamper with; falsify: He doctored the birthdate on his passport.

Let's use an issue from the Bush years to make this plain.

When Bush gave his State of the Union speech a few years ago where he mentioned yellowcake uranium, many people had a hand in crafting and shaping the speech. Speech writers, the CIA, administration officials and other depts all had a hand in it. None of those people doctored the talking points since they're considered an argument that's part of a process. What WOULD be doctoriing is if someone in the administration altered an official report which, by the way, Bush officials did with scientific studies prior to their official release.

Frankly, I would fully expect administration officials to be involved in shaping the message that Rice was going to deliver because Rice was an administration official. Now, if you could show me that someone in the administration altered an official report written by someone else and did so without attribution, then you'd have something.

 

[tinydancer]

[MENTION=25451]tinydancer[/MENTION]

I've already ripped at least a half dozen liberals on this board to shreds over this. Carbine and paper suffered the worst of it all.

Hey hey hey! Don't be so mean. I at least have offered them medical attention after my posts.

On second thought. Keep shredding. Just remember to call 911.

 

[NYcarbineer]

btw, Jay Carney on Sep 26th I think it was made a key point. He said it was self evident that it was a terrorist attack.

That was spot on as they say. Do you people know what self evident means? You should, it's in the Declaration of Independence.

Look up the term. Refresh your memory.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Well, well, well. What do we have here? It appears that the narrative of Benghazi being a "spontaneous protest brought on by a video" was the work of none other than White House officials.

Newly released emails on the Benghazi terror attack suggest a senior White House aide played a central role in preparing former U.N. ambassador Susan Rice for her controversial Sunday show appearances -- where she wrongly blamed protests over an Internet video.

More than 100 pages of documents were released to the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. Among them was a Sept. 14, 2012, email from Ben Rhodes, an assistant to the president and deputy national security adviser for strategic communications.

The Rhodes email, with the subject line: "RE: PREP Call with Susan: Saturday at 4:00 pm ET," was sent to a dozen members of the administration's inner circle, including key members of the White House communications team such as Press Secretary Jay Carney.

In the email, Rhodes specifically draws attention to the anti-Islam Internet video, without distinguishing whether the Benghazi attack was different from protests elsewhere.

The email lists the following two goals, among others:

"To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy."

"To reinforce the President and Administration's strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges."

The email goes on to state that the U.S. government rejected the message of the Internet video. "We find it disgusting and reprehensible. But there is absolutely no justification at all for responding to this movie with violence," the email stated

Benghazi emails suggest White House aide involved in prepping Rice for ?video? explanation | Fox News

The word "doctoring" is completely misleading here.

Definition: to tamper with; falsify: He doctored the birthdate on his passport.

Let's use an issue from the Bush years to make this plain.

When Bush gave his State of the Union speech a few years ago where he yellowcake uranium, many people had a hand in crafting and shaping the speech. Speech writers, the CIA, administration officials. None of those people doctored the talking points since they're considered an argument that's part of a process. What WOULD be doctoriing is if someone in the administration altered an official report which, by the way, Bush officials did with scientific studies prior to their official release.

Frankly, I would fully expect administration officials to be involved in shaping the message that Rice was going to deliver because Rice was an administration official. Now, if you could show me that someone in the administration altered an official report written by someone else and did so without attribution, then you'd have something.

Stop stealing Jay Carney's press notes.

 

[TemplarKormac]

btw, Jay Carney on Sep 26th I think it was made a key point. He said it was self evident that it was a terrorist attack.

That was spot on as they say. Do you people know what self evident means? You should, it's in the Declaration of Independence.

Look up the term. Refresh your memory.

Jay Carney isn't Barack Obama, now is he?

 

[Navy1960]

By only focusing on the victims, you don't get to the bottom of it to prevent there being more victims one day, and as you and I know that is the whole point here

Good evening. Today, our fellow citizens, our way of life, our very freedom came under attack in a series of deliberate and deadly terrorist acts. The victims were in airplanes, or in their offices; secretaries, businessmen and women, military and federal workers; moms and dads, friends and neighbors. Thousands of lives were suddenly ended by evil, despicable acts of terror. 9-11-2001 Pres. George W. Bush

While I believe President Obama did mention in the same context on the 12th President Bush did it still remains that several Americans have died in attacks on Embassies and Consulates over the years due to several factors , among them , not providing enough funding for protection for those men and women who put themselves in harms way for this nation and using these good people as political pawns for the same reason. It's a real shame the focus is not on the people who lost their lives for this nation rather than the political aspects of this.

Well, we are focusing on the cause of their lives being lost. That, being that they played politics and abandoned them to their fate.

A series of errors, beginning with the fact they were denied extra security that was clearly being requested.

Then they deliberately abandoned them and the lied to the American people, including the families of the slain.

All for political expediency.

Not sure what you mean we should focus on the victims, and not the reality of this tragedy. Should we just stare at their pictures and remain silent?

Not sure what you want exactly.

You will have to forgive me here depotoo, with respect, I am struggling to find any coverup in all this other than the fact that the folks on the ground asked for more security and for some strange reason , I have yet to be able to figure out why, they were cut, denied or simply refused. I did have the chance to read the CIA talking points that were given to Susan Rice and they are pretty consistent with what she said after the attack. Its my humble opinion here that all this focus on what it seems to me to be a disagreement in talking points in the aftermath of Benghazi does not honor those folks who gave their lives in Benghazi nor other Embassies worldwide, not does it solve the ongoing issue of providing security to those people we send into harms way. In fact its my opinion that if this nation regardless of who is in power decides to send our people into areas that are not so friendly to us and as I mentioned before they all go there willingly, then the least we can do is provide them the security they need to defend themselves. That is what I mean by focusing on the victims. In fact if the State Dept. is too inept to handle their own security I would be more than happy to suggest they go down the street to Defense and ask for some.

 

[percysunshine]

which was what story? that they needed more evidence before they where committed to what really happened?

Running interference again for NYc?

He is a big boy and do the 'Mission Impossible' thingy.

.

Do you have evidence that Susan Rice, speaking for the administration, retracted the President's calling it an act of terror?

So your proposition is that Susan Rice was unwilling to openly call the President a liar. That is sort of common sense. He was her boss, and he was not lying.


Yet, she told a completely different story, at his direction.



Continue 'Mission Impossible' theme music...

.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Lousy talking point. Give me a break.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/rw/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/fact-checker/StandingArt/pinocchio_4.jpg?uuid=zmHlfEniEeCn1tWe_T6KGA[/IMG[/quote]

No that's just you having to admit that Susan Rice never contradicted the president's characterization of the Benghazi attack as an act of terror.[/QUOTE]

NOW you're simply desperate. She went on 5 different networks and said "it was the video, not an act of terror."[/QUOTE]

Google:

No results found for "it was the video not an act of terror".

 

[tinydancer]

Well, well, well. What do we have here? It appears that the narrative of Benghazi being a "spontaneous protest brought on by a video" was the work of none other than White House officials.

Newly released emails on the Benghazi terror attack suggest a senior White House aide played a central role in preparing former U.N. ambassador Susan Rice for her controversial Sunday show appearances -- where she wrongly blamed protests over an Internet video.

More than 100 pages of documents were released to the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. Among them was a Sept. 14, 2012, email from Ben Rhodes, an assistant to the president and deputy national security adviser for strategic communications.

The Rhodes email, with the subject line: "RE: PREP Call with Susan: Saturday at 4:00 pm ET," was sent to a dozen members of the administration's inner circle, including key members of the White House communications team such as Press Secretary Jay Carney.

In the email, Rhodes specifically draws attention to the anti-Islam Internet video, without distinguishing whether the Benghazi attack was different from protests elsewhere.

The email lists the following two goals, among others:

"To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy."

"To reinforce the President and Administration's strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges."

The email goes on to state that the U.S. government rejected the message of the Internet video. "We find it disgusting and reprehensible. But there is absolutely no justification at all for responding to this movie with violence," the email stated

Benghazi emails suggest White House aide involved in prepping Rice for ?video? explanation | Fox News

The word "doctoring" is completely misleading here.

Definition: to tamper with; falsify: He doctored the birthdate on his passport.

Let's use an issue from the Bush years to make this plain.

When Bush gave his State of the Union speech a few years ago where he yellowcake uranium, many people had a hand in crafting and shaping the speech. Speech writers, the CIA, administration officials. None of those people doctored the talking points since they're considered an argument that's part of a process. What WOULD be doctoriing is if someone in the administration altered an official report which, by the way, Bush officials did with scientific studies prior to their official release.

Frankly, I would fully expect administration officials to be involved in shaping the message that Rice was going to deliver because Rice was an administration official. Now, if you could show me that someone in the administration altered an official report written by someone else and did so without attribution, then you'd have something.

Panetta and Ham said during their testimony that from the outset they realized this was a planned terror attack that had nothing to do with a video.

The person who crafted this video talking point in the email by the way happens to be the brother of the President of CBS.

 

[TemplarKormac]

@tinydancer

I've already ripped at least a half dozen liberals on this board to shreds over this. Carbine and paper suffered the worst of it all.

Hey hey hey! Don't be so mean. I at least have offered them medical attention after my posts.

On second thought. Keep shredding. Just remember to call 911.

Haha.

I don't dial 911. I dial 466453 or G-o-o-g-l-e. Take that rhyme to the bank.

 

[NYcarbineer]

btw, Jay Carney on Sep 26th I think it was made a key point. He said it was self evident that it was a terrorist attack.

That was spot on as they say. Do you people know what self evident means? You should, it's in the Declaration of Independence.

Look up the term. Refresh your memory.

Jay Carney isn't Barack Obama, now is he?

Neither is Susan Rice so you've wasted alot of time invoking her name haven't you?

Do you know what self evident means?