man this thread is still going? Geez I thought obama already won and all votes were counted? What's going on in here guyz?
Senator Droopy will be at home watching Judge Judy during the next congress so his opinion is increasingly irrelevant.
Who changed the Benghazi talking points? United States Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice talks with Bob Schieffer for the Sept 16th "Face the Nation" 95 Comments / Shares/166 Tweets/Stumble/EmailMore + Who within the Obama administration deleted mention of "terrorism" and "al-Qaeda" from the CIA's talking points on the deadly Sept. 11 attacks on the U.S. mission in Benghazi? It isn't the only unanswered question in the wake of the tragedy, but it's proven to be one of the most confounding. Play VIDEO Susan Rice fails to satisfy GOP senators' questions The question was first raised 12 days ago when former CIA Director General David Petraeus told members of Congress that his original talking points cleared for public dissemination included the likely involvement by terrorists and an al-Qaeda affiliate. Petraeus said somebody removed the references before they were used to inform the public. The Obama administration has declined to directly answer who made the edits. And the nation's top intelligence officials appear either confused or not forthcoming about the journey their own intelligence took. On Fri. Nov. 16, Petraeus told members of Congress that it wasn't the CIA that changed the talking points. The White House and the State Department said it wasn't them. The CIA then told CBS News that the edits were made at a "senior level in the interagency process." Intelligence officials said the references were dropped so as not to tip off al Qaeda as to what the U.S. knew, and to protect sources and methods. Soon thereafter, another reason was given. A source from the Office of the Director for National Intelligence (ODNI) told CBS News' Margaret Brennan that ODNI made the edits as part of the interagency process because the links to al Qaeda were deemed too "tenuous" to make public. Play VIDEO Susan Rice speaking out on Libya attack On Tuesday, Acting CIA Director Mike Morell provided yet another account. In a meeting with Republican Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., Morell stated that he believed it was the FBI that removed the references. He said the FBI did so "to prevent compromising an ongoing criminal investigation." "We were surprised by this revelation and the reasoning behind it," wrote the senators in a joint statement Tuesday. But it was just a matter of hours before there was yet another revision. A CIA official contacted Graham and stated that Morell "misspoke" in the earlier meeting and that it was, in fact, the CIA, not the FBI, that deleted the al Qaeda references. "They were unable to give a reason as to why," stated Graham. A U.S. intelligence official on Tuesday told CBS News there was "absolutely no intent to misinform." The official says the talking points "were never meant to be definitive and, in fact, noted that the assessment may change. The points clearly reflect the early indications of extremist involvement in a direct result. It wasn't until after they were used in public that analysts reconciled contradictory information about how the assault began." Play VIDEO Rice: Libya attacks spontaneous Speaking on CBS' "Face the Nation" on behalf of the White House five days after the attacks, U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice did not directly say an al Qaeda affiliate was suspected or point to terrorism. She said the "assessment at present" was that the attacks began "spontaneously" in response to an inflammatory anti-Islam video posted on YouTube. She added that "extremist elements" then joined the effort. Tuesday, for the first time, Rice stated outright that there was never any protest or demonstration. Republicans who have read the same intelligence that Rice accessed say it's laced with references to al Qaeda and terrorism, and they're mystified as how she could have come away with a primary narrative about a spontaneous protest and a video. McCain and Graham have accused the Obama administration of pushing a false narrative in advance of the election because President Obama had claimed that al Qaeda had been decimated; the thinking is that a terror attack killing four Americans on what is technically U.S. soil overseas -- not to mention the first killing of a U.S. ambassador in over 30 years -- could have proven politically difficult for Mr. Obama. Play VIDEO GOP senators still "troubled" after meeting with Rice Late Tuesday, a CIA official confirmed to CBS News that someone within the CIA made the changes. The official combined all previous explanations for the edits stating: "The information about individuals linked to al Qaeda was derived from classified sources, and could not be corroborated at the unclassified level; the links were tenuous and therefore it made sense to be cautious before naming perpetrators; finally, no one wanted to prejudice a criminal investigation in its earliest stages." Republicans are not satisfied and want to know why Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also seemed to embrace the video storyline, relying on evidence that proved far more tenuous than the links to terror. The father of Benghazi victim Tyrone Woods has said that Clinton made no mention of the terrorists who killed his son, but told him the U.S. would "make sure that the person who made that [YouTube video] is arrested and prosecuted." Play VIDEO Dickerson: Rice critics targeting her as "administration proxy" The Obama administration hasn't responded to CBS News questions as to whether Clinton made such a statement, and under what premise she planned to arrest the maker of the video since there was nothing illegal about the content. The man who posted the video, Nakoula Bassily Nakoula, was eventually arrested for reportedly violating terms of a probation that prohibited him from using computers and the Internet. Tuesday, while speaking in the time between the two differing accounts given to Congress, White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters, "I would simply say that there are no unanswered questions about Ambassador Rice's appearances on Sunday shows, and the talking points that she used for those appearances that were provided by the intelligence community, those questions have been answered." The president has likewise claimed to have answered questions on Benghazi. "We have provided every bit of information that we have, and we will continue to provide information...," Mr. Obama told reporters at a Nov. 14 news conference. He added: "We will provide all the information that is available about what happened on that day..." and "I will put forward every bit of information that we have." "We respectfully disagree with the White House's statement today that 'there are no unanswered questions' about Ambassador Rice's September 16 Sunday show appearances and the talking points she used," wrote McCain, Graham and Ayotte on Tuesday. They also renewed their request for Mr. Obama to respond to more than a dozen letters they've written to him asking for information regarding the Sept. 11 attacks in Libya. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57555984/who-changed-the-benghazi-talking-points/
No on cares. There are far bigger issues facing the country, and the Republicans continued hounding of this issue will blow up in their face if they do not get something done with Obama on the financial cliff.
Hillary's overreactions trying to justify her actions just serve to reinforce her culpability. Bill tried to overreact when he lied about having sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. Glad his ass got impeached
No one cares? Our ambassador was murdered and his body dragged through the streets! Your political bias has completely blinded you.
What is the outrage really about... understanding what happened to improve things, or pointing the finger at an administration after what anyone would agree is a tragedy, for political points? I'm pretty sure no one wanted this to happen. I'm also pretty sure the gravity and benefit of "winning" this argument has been reduced since the re-election. The sooner we start acting like one nation, with responsible and honorable goals, the better. Unfortunately, some seem unable to do that any more. If i saw a goal to it, I'd praise that.... unfortunately the only goal I see in this is one that makes us less of a nation. More division.
telling lies to the American public and not doing enough to prevent the assassination of our ambassador. Kind of a big deal bro
both. Outrage that an American embassy (which had previously asked for more security) could be under attack for 8 hours, call for help 3 times, and not receive any military aid. That's pathetic and scary. People want to know how this could of happened (unless you are a Obama supporter, then you don't care). Wanting to know who is to blame for American soldiers being left to die when they repeatedly asked for help is rational. I sure as hell want to know who gave the order to not give aid to the soldiers at Benghazi and I want that ******* to explain his/her decision, or if we were unable to give aid (I doubt this is the case with the size and power of our military) then I want to know why we weren't in a position to do so. Also to a lesser extent I want someone to explain why requests for more security were not honored.
^ this. It's truly remarkable what Obama supporters will sweep under the rug Telling lies to the American people, having our ambassador killed and dragged through the streets, Obama not holding a single meeting of his jobs council in over a year and our unemployment being a national disgrace, etc. The media has created this. People pick one side or the other, then cling to those positions without even bothering to THINK about them, or apply basic logic to their positions.
You might have more success breaking the silence if your outrage wasn't so selective. Did you have the same outrage at Bush when the 9/11 attacks happened? If so, please link me to your thoughts in that thread. I think if you showed any evidence of genuine and consistent concern for American lives rather than just looking for ammo to fire at the current adminstration, people might actually take you seriously. .
9/11 was in 2001. Not many posters then. To answer your question though, yes I was/am angry with the CIA and FBI for not working together. The previous post by me would be evidence of genuine concern for American lives. 4 Americans died at Benghazi. Not all death is preventable, these should of been. We spend an assload on our military for a reason.
thanks for reminding us you were glad when Bill Clinton was impeached. remember when you said the same thing in that one thread where you were suspicious about Hillary's hospitalization as if there was some conspiracy in place? you put nothing past the Clintons, right? did you want to follow up on that comment or just remind us again about the Monica Lewinsky scandal? political bias?
