 |
 |
 |
 |
Rep. Pelosi knocks Republicans' 'obsession' with Benghazi attack
- 05/11/13 11:43 AM ET
Congressional Republicans are using their Benghazi investigation as political "subterfuge" to distract from other issues, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Saturday.
Pelosi said it's important to find out what happened in the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. But the right is taking it too far, she said in an interview with MSNBC's Melissa Harris-Perry.
"The obsession that some of my Republican colleagues have in the House doesn't look like it's on the path to really finding a solution, but just to keeping an issue alive," she said.
"We certainly have to give the full attention Benghazi deserves, but we cannot let it soak up all of the congressional attention," Pelosi said. "What would be the purpose of that?"
The issue has also dominated conservative media.
"We want to find out what did happen, but … then it becomes an issue that is subterfuge: 'Let's talk about Benghazi forever, so we don't have to talk about what the American people want us to talk about,'" Pelosi said. "They want us to talk about jobs, they want us to talk about economic security, economic growth."
Republicans have accused the administration of downplaying the attack, citing initial talking points that described it as a protest over an anti-Islamic YouTube video rather than a coordinated terrorist attack.
Some Republicans have also questioned whether the administration refused requests for additional security in Benghazi.
"Much of what is being said out there by some of my colleagues in Congress is simply not true … it simply isn't true," Pelosi said. "So we have to make sure the public record is clear."
Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/299177-pelosi-knocks-gop-obsession-with-benghazi-#ixzz2T2cMGjq5
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook
I have also done some more digging myself. The emails confirm my theory that the 12 versions of the talking points was basically a feud between the CIA and the State Dept. over who was going to get blamed….
ReplyDeleteoverhttp://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/11/us/politics/benghazi-e-mails-put-white-house-on-the-defensive.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0
They ended with a compromise that allowed the CIA to keep their basic lie in the talking points but not further embellish it with "we told you so" statements of prior warnings about extremists that serve to exonerate the CIA and embarrass the State Dept. The basic CIA lie, which was in EVERY version of the talking points from start to finish says the attack was "spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US diplomatic post in Benghazi and subsequently its annex." That serves the political interests of the State Dept. and White House, and also serves the interests of the CIA inasmuch as nobody can reasonably fault the CIA for not anticipating this "spontaneous" attack right under their noses against their own CIA outpost. The edits were just to take out the CIA over-reach to further cover their butts at the expense of the State Dept.
--David
David, re-read the article. Here is a quote:
ReplyDelete"The e-mails, which the administration turned over to Congress, show the White House coordinating an intensive process with the State Department, the C.I.A., the F.B.I. and other agencies to obtain the final version of the talking points, used by Susan E. Rice, the ambassador to the United Nations, in television appearances after the attack."
It is evident that the White House was right in the middle of this mess regardless of what they have said. They have lied throughout this process. How can we believe anything they say?
As far as your comments that the CIA was trying to cover its butt, the following quote blows that argument to kingdom come.
"The State Department, in particular, pushed to remove references to Al Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia, the Libyan militant group suspected of carrying out the attack as well as warnings about other potential terrorist threats from the C.I.A., which drafted the initial talking points".
The State Department (Hillary) obviously wanted to cover its butt! Why would the State Department want to delete anything about Al Qaeda if it had not missed the details?
There is too much smoke here not to have fire. Hillary should have been fired, Obama should resign for misleading and covering up this massive lie!
You do not understand my theory of the case…
ReplyDelete1. This is now the third time I have pointed out to you that the cover-up BEGAN at the CIA in their very first draft of the talking points before anybody at the White House or State Dept. had any input whatsoever into the talking points. That is confirmed by the 12 talking points drafts, and undisputed by anybody.
2. The State Dept./White House could -- and should -- have taken out the CIA "spontaneous….." explanation, but it served their interests to keep it in there.
3. Nonetheless, there was a conflict between State and CIA over all the additional statements about CIA warnings, because they embarrass the State Dept.
4. Carney may be correct that, by the time the White House got involved, the State Dept. had already pressured the CIA into dropping the warning statements from the talking points. It is also possible that the White House put pressure on the CIA at the request of the State Dept. From what I have so far from the emails , there is nothing in the emails to answer that one way or the other. Remember, though, we have not yet seen all the emails (just snippets), so we need to remain open about that question.
5. As far as Clinton and Obama are concerned, they did not lie in their Rose Garden speeches hours after the attack on Sept. 12. In fact, Obama called it an "act of terror" and made no reference to video, spontaneous, etc. That's is why Romney lost on that point in the presidential debates, if you recall.
This note summarizes my conclusions so far, but I reserved the right to revise and extend my remarks as more information comes (as they say in congressional speeches!).
-- David
I watched "Meet the Press" this morning. As we agreed a couple weeks ago, David Gregory is a lousy interviewer. Issa was interviewed. He lied big-time. Gregory didn't even call him on it. Issa said the question is "How could you change the talking points 12 times from what seems to be relatively right to what seems to be completely wrong?"
ReplyDeleteAs I keep reminding you, the very first talking points document the CIA wrote before anybody changed anything claimed that the attack was "spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US diplomatic post in Benghazi and subsequently its annex." That talking point is not "relatively right." It is completely wrong. It is what Susan Rice was hanged for saying.
David Brooks commented after the interview. He said exactly what I have been telling you. The CIA was frantically trying to cover-up that fact that their own outpost was the victim of a planned terrorist attack. They knew that. There were more than 20 of them in Benghazi during the attack.
Brooks also makes my point that the State Dept. was pushing back against the CIA statements about their prior warnings regarding extremists, because it makes it look as if the State Dept. is responsible for the attack by ignoring the CIA warnings. This back-and-forth "finger pointing" is why there are 12 versions of the talking points.
--David
The reason I do not understand your take is that it is completely refuted by the article in the New York times. The selection that you suggested to bolster your case actually blows it up! The paragraph that is your undoing is: "The State Department, in particular, pushed to remove references to Al Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia, the Libyan militant group suspected of carrying out the attack as well as warnings about other potential terrorist threats from the C.I.A., which drafted the initial talking points".
ReplyDeleteThe CIA, it appears, was not trying to cover its but, it was the State Department.
This argument you lose as you have been hoisted on your own petard.
Tom, let me try this again. Actually, the point you are making is my #3 above. The State Dept. is guilty of spinning the talking points regarding extremists. But if you want to get the full picture, you must separate what was edited from what was not edited.
ReplyDeleteThe BIG LIE that Susan Rice was crucified for saying was that the attack was "spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US diplomatic post in Benghazi and subsequently its annex." This is the #1 talking point in the initial CIA document. It was written by the CIA. It was not an edit added by the State Dept.
True, the State Dept. pressured the CIA to remove the references to Islamic extremists. The motivation for this edit is disputed, but, in any case, it is important to note that the CIA initial document never acknowledged that this was a planned terrorist attack. That is what they should have said in their initial document if, as Issa claims, their explanation of the attack were "relatively right." They were there. CIA knew it was a terrorist attack. However, Issa wants viewers of "Meet the Press" who have not read the 12 versions of the talking points (99% of the viewers!) to believe that the CIA are the good guys who initially said that it was a planned terrorist attack and that the State Dept. changed that explanation to "spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo…"
David Brooks is correct. The CIA was doing CYA for themselves at the expense of the State Dept., especially all their statements about their prior warnings, and the State Dept. was pushing back to try to cover their own butts. That is clear from the emails.
If the CIA were competent, they would have told the administration back at the time the British were attacked and pulled out that the area is not safe and the outpost needs to be shutdown before Americans are killed. That would have saved four lives. Furthermore, why the heck didn't they anticipate and prepare that the al-Qaeda terrorists would try something to commemorate 9-11. How much "intelligence" would it take to figure that out? In a place like Benghazi, they should have been on "red alert" on 9-11.
--David
Let me try again--it does not matter if the CIA, State Department or The White House lied, deceived or made things up, the President's office is where the buck stops and he is responsible for what his people say when they meet with the press! He cannot escape this one, he is responsible..
ReplyDeleteAs Harry Truman said, the buck stops with the president for everything that happens. That's true, but when lies are put forth, let's track down where the lie originated. Those people are also responsible, and in a more direct sense. In this case, the lie was that the attack was "spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US diplomatic post in Benghazi and subsequently its annex." That lie originated at the CIA, not the State Dept. or the White House. That is what Issa's congressional committee, the media, and political pundits are debating with the emails and the 12 versions of the talking points. I thought that is what we were talking about here. We can all agree on the Harry Truman dictum.
ReplyDelete--David
You are missing the point. It does not matter where the information got screwed up, it is the responsibility of the President and his staff to ensure that they are delivering correct information to the public. When they get it wrong, it is incumbent upon them to do a mea culpa, correct the information, explain the error but not to cover it up like they seem to be at Benghazi.
ReplyDeleteThose who gave the President are responsible also but that does not let off the executive from presenting false information as accurate.
I expect that when the President gives me information that he is presenting the best information available at time and should it be determined later that the information was faulty or misleading, the President must come out and say so.
"I expect that when the President gives me information that he is presenting the best information available at time and should it be determined later that the information was faulty or misleading, the President must come out and say so."
ReplyDeleteObama said today that he was getting the same "intelligence" from the CIA as Susan Rice was getting up to the time of the Sunday show. I think he was skeptical about it even at the time, because only hours after the attack he called it "an act of terror" in his Rose Garden speech where he made no reference to their butt-covering "spontaneous…blah, blah" talking point #1.
He also said today that he sent Matthew G. Olsen. Director National Counterterrorism Center, to testify about the Benghazi attack at the Senate hearing. Mr. Olsen testified that it was a terrorists attack and included al-Qaeda people….
http://www.whatthefolly.com/2012/09/23/transcript-qa-with-nctc-director-matthew-olsen-at-the-senate-committee-on-homeland-security-and-government-affairs/
By the way, this hearing was September 19 -- just 8 days after the attack. That was another of Issa's lies on Meet the Press yesterday. He said it was a month after the attack that the Obama administration first called it a terrorist attack. Obama himself called it an "act of terror" immediately, and sent Olsen to the Senate to underscore the point.
--David
They released about 100 pages of more emails today. It was the lawyer for the CIA who said that they should not say that terrorists did the attack. So those edits were done by the CIA at the direction of their own lawyer.
ReplyDelete--David