125
Benghazi : Swingers Discussion 2218171041
Busy Swingers Forum - everything you always wanted to know about swingers.
SwingLifeStyle Swingers Personal Ads. | SwingLifeStyle Swingers Clubs

Busy Swingers Forum

Everything you always wanted to know about swingers.

Create A Free Account

HELP
FORUMSGeneral DiscussionsPoliticsBenghazi
TOPIC: Benghazi
GoTo Page: Less ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ... More 
Start   41 to 50 of 195   End
User Details are only visible to members.
At 7:51 p.m., the F.B.I. offered only minor changes to the draft, the bureau’s only suggestions during the contentious process.

At 9:24 p.m., Ms. Nuland, reading the latest draft, complained in an e-mail, “These don’t resolve all my issues or those of my building leadership.” Ten minutes later, Benjamin J. Rhodes, a deputy national security adviser, offered his first comments, saying, “We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, especially the investigation.”

In a report that set off the latest tempest over the talking points, ABC News reported incorrectly that Mr. Rhodes had emphasized the need to protect the State Department’s interests.

At 9:52 p.m., a C.I.A. spokesman e-mailed to other agency staff members a draft note intended for Mr. Petraeus, warning him that while the White House had quickly cleared the proposed talking points, the State Department had “major concerns.”

Mr. Obama’s national security deputies reviewed the talking points at a meeting the next day, Sept. 15, Mr. Rhodes said.

At 11:25 a.m., Mr. Rhodes changed a reference to the United States “consulate” in Benghazi to “diplomatic post.”

Over the next couple of hours, aides made small final changes and e-mailed a final version to lawmakers shortly after 3 p.m.

With time short before Ms. Rice began taping her appearances on Sunday morning news programs, the White House also supplied her aides with the final talking points.

Asked by one of Ms. Rice’s aides, “Is this the final language you want to use on Benghazi,” Mr. Rhodes replied with a single word: “Yup.”

San Antonio TX
Username hidden
(8078 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
But there is no other evidence in the e-mails that Mr. Morell himself objected to the inclusion of this material. In an e-mail to Mr. Petraeus accompanying the final version of the talking points, Mr. Morell referred to the State Department’s deep concerns about the references.

The release of the e-mails offers a rare glimpse inside the White House five days after the attack as it struggled to piece together intelligence to formulate a public account of what happened.

The process began in earnest at 4:20 p.m. on Friday, Sept. 14, when Stephen W. Preston, the C.I.A. general counsel, sent an e-mail to other agency officials warning them not to disclose information that might interfere with the F.B.I.’s investigation.

At 6:20 p.m., the spokesman for the National Security Council at the time, Tommy Vietor, e-mailed to remind officials that Denis McDonough, then the deputy national security adviser and now the White House chief of staff, wanted to ensure that the edits were coordinated with the State Department.

At 6:41 p.m., Shawn Turner, the spokesman for the director of national intelligence, suggested saying that on Sept. 10, the C.I.A. had “notified” the American embassy in Cairo, not “warned” it, of social media reports calling for a demonstration and encouraging jihadists to break into the embassy. Mr. Morell later removed the entire reference.

At 7:16 p.m., Victoria Nuland, the State Department spokeswoman, weighed in with her initial concerns about ensuring that the talking points provided to lawmakers did not go further than what the administration was telling reporters.

Twenty-three minutes later, Ms. Nuland sent White House and intelligence officials an even more pointed e-mail, objecting that the talking points could be “abused” by lawmakers “to beat the State Department for not paying attention to agency warnings so why do we want to feed that either? Concerned ... ”

San Antonio TX
Username hidden
(8078 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
In releasing the e-mails, the White House was hoping to show that intelligence officials, not political advisers, drove the debate over the talking points. It drew attention to a draft of the talking points — the only document provided by the White House that was not part of an e-mail chain — in which Mr. Morell, in his own writing, crossed out five lines that referred to C.I.A. warnings about the threat of attacks by Al Qaeda-linked extremists in Benghazi and eastern Libya.

San Antonio TX
Username hidden
(8078 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
I saw the first hint that America caused this by the video on YouTube, from videos on YouTube. It was first reported by some guy in England and that's when I tuned into our local and national media. How did the Brits get that angle before our guys ever mentioned it?

I too would like to know who exactly started the rumor first, however I'm not gonna assume that I know since our media never brought up what the Brit guy stated.

You can ask until you're blue in the face but, we will never know exactly what politicians say is factual, contains some fact or pure horseshit.

San Antonio TX
Username hidden
(8078 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Perf

We mostly both use the new media to get our info, so what makes me the expert on why any information came out the way it did? What are your experts telling you? Actual FACTS and not opinions and fear mongering... Just the facts! You stated that it's all a lie. What I've heard is that they didn't tell a lie, they simply didn't get all the facts together before spouting off at the mouth. Who told you they intentionally told a lie about anything? Not what this or that person assumes but, who has first hand knowledge that the conspiracy that's be attached to this is, a conspiracy at all.

I trust your info is actually fact since you're defending it, so lets hear it, lead me to the actual documented fact that this was intentional? I see human error, but I'm not a conspiracy theorist!

San Antonio TX
Username hidden
(8078 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
" find it funny that the same people who expect Obama and Clinton to have perfect information shortly after the attack are the same ones who give Bush a pass on WMD... "

I don't expect perfect information shortly after the attack. I just want to know why they passed along information they knew was a blatantly false

Pittsburgh PA
Username hidden
(17166 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
"'m not defending anyone's actions, so I have no idea of what you expect me to say. I'm not gonna argue something for the sake of your entertainment. This whole thing stinks of BS but, the point is, they all stunk of BS. "

But you said it was the same as many other attacks. I don't think you're following the story very close. I want to know if you can tell me where the false story about the video came from, and why it was put out on all the Sunday news shows. I want to know the timeline. I want to know why the talking points were edited so many times.

Pittsburgh PA
Username hidden
(17166 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
I find it funny and ironic that the same person who touted Obama as a hero, as if he actually pulled the trigger on OBL. But when Obama completely fucks up that same moron wants to use Bush as a excuse, for Obama's fuck ups.

Sanford NC
Username hidden
(19452 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
I find it funny that the same people who expect Obama and Clinton to have perfect information shortly after the attack are the same ones who give Bush a pass on WMD...

Fullerton CA
Username hidden
(17357 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
what sa said

Mount Laurel NJ
Username hidden
(1283 posts)
GoTo Page: Less ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ... More 
Start   41 to 50 of 195   End
TOPIC: Benghazi