The White House denied Saturday having heavily edited talking points
to UN Ambassador Susan Rice about the deadly attacks on a US mission in
Libya to remove references to terrorism.
“The only edit that was made by the White House and also by the State Department was to change the word ‘consulate’ to the word ‘diplomatic facility,’ since the facility in Benghazi was not formally a consulate,” Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes told reporters aboard Air Force One.
“Other than that, we were guided by the points that were provided by the intelligence community. So I can’t speak to any other edits that may have been made.”
Republican lawmakers briefed by former CIA chief David Petraeus on Friday said that the original talking points about the attack had mentioned groups linked to Al-Qaeda.
But Petraeus told the lawmakers that the reference was removed from a final version given to Rice before she discussed the attack on five Sunday television talkshows and said the assault was a response to an amateur video denigrating Islam and the Prophet Mohammed.
The initial talking points “specifically mentioned Al-Qaeda, and that Al-Qaeda was involved in the attack,” Republican Representative Peter King, who attended the briefing, told Fox News.
“When the talking points were finalized, all the references to Al-Qaeda were taken out and it was put in almost as an afterthought saying there are indications of extremist involvement in the demonstration.”
Critics have seized on Rice’s remarks to argue that the White House misled or even lied to Americans during a heated election season.
Rice has been floated as a possible successor to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who is stepping down early next year, but some Republicans threaten to block her nomination.
But the Obama administration has denied it misled the public, insisting it was providing information based on the intelligence available at the time.
“Those points, and what Susan said is that we indicated we believed extremists were involved,” Rhodes said. “So you have an initial assessment, an initial judgment, but you’re able to get more specific as… the investigation proceeds.”
Asked whether the White House had removed the initial reference to a terror link, Rhodes suggested the intelligence community was to blame.
“We were provided with points by the intelligence community that represented their assessment; the only edit made by the White House was the factual edit about how to refer to the facility,” he said.
“Now if there were adjustments to them made by the intelligence community, that’s common and that’s something they would have done themselves.”
Article Source
“The only edit that was made by the White House and also by the State Department was to change the word ‘consulate’ to the word ‘diplomatic facility,’ since the facility in Benghazi was not formally a consulate,” Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes told reporters aboard Air Force One.
“Other than that, we were guided by the points that were provided by the intelligence community. So I can’t speak to any other edits that may have been made.”
Republican lawmakers briefed by former CIA chief David Petraeus on Friday said that the original talking points about the attack had mentioned groups linked to Al-Qaeda.
But Petraeus told the lawmakers that the reference was removed from a final version given to Rice before she discussed the attack on five Sunday television talkshows and said the assault was a response to an amateur video denigrating Islam and the Prophet Mohammed.
The initial talking points “specifically mentioned Al-Qaeda, and that Al-Qaeda was involved in the attack,” Republican Representative Peter King, who attended the briefing, told Fox News.
“When the talking points were finalized, all the references to Al-Qaeda were taken out and it was put in almost as an afterthought saying there are indications of extremist involvement in the demonstration.”
Critics have seized on Rice’s remarks to argue that the White House misled or even lied to Americans during a heated election season.
Rice has been floated as a possible successor to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who is stepping down early next year, but some Republicans threaten to block her nomination.
But the Obama administration has denied it misled the public, insisting it was providing information based on the intelligence available at the time.
“Those points, and what Susan said is that we indicated we believed extremists were involved,” Rhodes said. “So you have an initial assessment, an initial judgment, but you’re able to get more specific as… the investigation proceeds.”
Asked whether the White House had removed the initial reference to a terror link, Rhodes suggested the intelligence community was to blame.
“We were provided with points by the intelligence community that represented their assessment; the only edit made by the White House was the factual edit about how to refer to the facility,” he said.
“Now if there were adjustments to them made by the intelligence community, that’s common and that’s something they would have done themselves.”
Article Source
The information above is irrelevant. (Fact) The White House viewed in real-time the attack on the Consulate. The attack lasted for seven hours, plenty of time for a US Military response. No response ever came, why? The answer is obvious. Someone, who out ranks every person who was compelled to save the lives of these men were told to STAND-DOWN. Why would anyone do such a thing. Once again, the answer is obvious. Someone has something tremendous to hide. Someone allowed US born men to die, just to keep a secret. This person would be as guilty of the murder as those who actually carried out the slaughter. Who is powerful enough to give such an order. And if such a person was out ranked by anyone else in authority above them, why would not this person authorize a military response to save the lives of our men who were begging for help? What horrible secret would be worthy enough to protect, in exchange for the death of human beings? And why if the White House viewed the slaughter of good men in real-time on September 11, still be investigating the incident in late November? (COVER-UP) Who gave the order to STAND-DOWN? Lets stay focused here. Don't loose site of what's important. Why, will come later. All the American people want to know first is, WHO GAVE THE ORDER TO STAND-DOWN? Who would allow people to die, when we had the way and the means to save their lives? Once we find out who, then we can ask, WHY?
ReplyDelete