I was wrong about Benghazi

[Shryke]

Before I click on it, is this from Weigel? What do I win?

You win nothing because it's not.

I guess you continue to win "least coherent argument" when it comes to Benghazi.

[Guest Raidne]

Here is your summary.

[The Progressive]

Just a note that the wapo's article shryke linked to is dated today 5/14/13, four days after the 5/10/13 article raidne linked to.

The latest development was the recent email scoop from whitehouse staffer.

[Shryke]

Here's ABCs link to the various revisions of the talking points:

http://abcnews.go.co...ts Timeline.pdf

The references to AQ and Islamic extremists seem to be removed in the 9:45am revision. The "Spontaneous protest evolves into attack" thing was in from the start and never changed.

Of course, the main contention for the scandal here, from the ABC report, is this:

http://abcnews.go.co...ror-references/

In an email dated 9/14/12 at 9:34 p.m. — three days after the attack and two days before Ambassador Rice appeared on the Sunday shows – Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes wrote an email saying the State Department’s concerns needed to be addressed.

“We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don’t want to undermine the FBI investigation. We thus will work through the talking points tomorrow morning at the Deputies Committee meeting.”

Which is directly referencing the edited part I mentioned above.

Of course, you may recognize that name Ben Rhodes. Because it's exactly this point that the information from Jack Tapper contradicts:

http://thelead.blogs...benghazi-leaks/

(linked here again)

Just a bit of the new report:

The context of the e-mail chain is important. Different officials from different agencies were going through iterations of talking points for Congress. But Nuland, sources who have seen the e-mails say, was not the only one expressing concerns. There were internal disagreements within the CIA about a number of issues, including whether the attack was a pre-planned act of terrorism, or the result of spontaneous demonstrations in Benghazi because of demonstrations in Cairo against an anti-Muslim video (a demonstration that, it turns out, never happened in Benghazi). FBI officials were also expressing concerns about how much to say about the investigation, and how much information should be shared at that time.

Which seems to undermine the whole basis for the scandal. Or, at least, the narrative of it being passed around.

(The ABC report itself is, imo, rather badly written and tries to read alot in to the talking points and their revision that isn't there)

Here is your summary.

That wasn't very helpful since it doesn't actually state any specifics about what they (or you or anyone) are claiming happened.

[The Progressive]

The rightwing narrative keeps shifting so fast that I have no fucking clue what they're tripping on about right now.

But the revelation that that intel report included "pontaneous protest evolves into attack" from the start certainly put the nail into the coffin for the rightwing's bullshit about how that was inserted by the State department for political purposes.

[alguien]

Y'all aren't the only ones with questions about Benghazi...

[Shryke]

What seems interesting today is that the new information appears to say that someone leaked deliberately altered emails to create political damage for the Obama Admin. Certainly a new twist.

[All-for-Joffrey]

For those who are on this out of genuine concerns about government transparency rather than Republican political reasons to weaken the Democrats, why don't you post about stuff that the Obama administration is actually guilty of? Like, oh, I don't know, the DOJ wiretapping the AP journalists' phone records?

[The Progressive]

For those who are on this out of genuine concerns about government transparency rather than Republican political reasons to weaken the Democrats, why don't you post about stuff that the Obama administration is actually guilty of? Like, oh, I don't know, the DOJ wiretapping the AP journalists' phone records?

What are they guilty of?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

AforJ,

Privacy and freedom of the press are so 1996.

;)

[Shryke]

For those who are on this out of genuine concerns about government transparency rather than Republican political reasons to weaken the Democrats, why don't you post about stuff that the Obama administration is actually guilty of? Like, oh, I don't know, the DOJ wiretapping the AP journalists' phone records?

There's a US politics thread for that, where it's been mentioned, but no, they didn't Wiretap anyone. They subpoenaed records of phone calls (ie - who was called afaik, not what was said) in order to (it seems) try and track down an internal leak.

The big question seems to be whether the warrant was too broad.

[The Progressive]

AforJ,

Privacy and freedom of the press are so 1996.

;)

Oh Scot, weren't you quite gungho about warrants with regards to law-enforcement related actions? Well they got warrants here.

Guess you'll keep moving that goal post though lol.

[Reny of Storms End]

What seems interesting today is that the new information appears to say that someone leaked deliberately altered emails to create political damage for the Obama Admin. Certainly a new twist.

If this is true will we get an "I was wrong about I was wrong about Benghazi" thread?

[The Progressive]

If this is true will we get an "I was wrong about I was wrong about Benghazi"?

:laugh:

[awesome possum]

there just isn't much there.

there just isn't much there.

there just isn't much there.

there just isn't much there.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Lev,

Warrents are a minimim requirement. I'm glad they were obtained in this case. That said I'm a troubled by the State seizing two months of records from a news organization. Even with a warrent that seems mighty broad.

[Shryke]

Lev,

Warrents are a minimim requirement. I'm glad they were obtained in this case. That said I'm a troubled by the State seizing two months of records from a news organization. Even with a warrent that seems mighty broad.

It's a good discussion to be had. We should move it to the US politics thread though, since it isn't at all related to Benghazi.

[The Progressive]

Scot,

Your concern does not make the action illegal.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Lev,

Moved my response to US politics.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

Here's ABCs link to the various revisions of the talking points:

http://abcnews.go.co...ts Timeline.pdf

The references to AQ and Islamic extremists seem to be removed in the 9:45am revision. The "Spontaneous protest evolves into attack" thing was in from the start and never changed.

That is a far more comprehensive set of revisions than the Stephen Hayes article I was citing from, which only had 3 of the revisions. The more I look at it, the more it appears that the Weekly Standard article, assuming the author had access to all of the revisions, deliberately omitted several interim revisions to make it look as if more significant changes were made on Saturday after the meeting at the White House. In particular, from the Weekly Standard article the change from "attacks" to "demonstrations" occurred after the White House meeting on Saturday morning, when in fact, according to the ABC talking points revisions, that language change happened much earlier on Friday. It certainly does seem to be a case of the more you look, the less there is to see.