President with National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes. |
CNN has obtained an e-mail sent by a top aide to President Barack Obama about White House reaction to the deadly attack last September 11 on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, that apparently differs from how sources characterized it to two different media organizations.
The actual e-mail from then-Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes appears to show that whomever leaked it did so in a way that made it appear that the White House was primarily concerned with the State Department's desire to remove references and warnings about specific terrorist groups so as to not bring criticism to the department.
ABC News reported that Rhodes wrote:
“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.” The Weekly Standard reported that Rhodes "responded to the group, explaining that (State Department's spokeswoman, Victoria) Nuland had raised valid concerns and advising that the issues would be resolved at a meeting of the National Security Council’s Deputies Committee the following morning."
Whoever provided those quotes seemingly invented the notion that Rhodes wanted the concerns of the State Department specifically addressed. While Nuland, particularly, had expressed a desire to remove mentions of specific terrorist groups and CIA warnings about the increasingly dangerous assignment, Rhodes put no emphasis at all in his e-mail on the State Department's concerns.
Here is the actual e-mail:
"All-
"Sorry to be late to this discussion. We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation."
“There is a ton of wrong information getting out into the public domain from Congress and people who are not particularly informed. Insofar as we have firmed up assessments that don’t compromise intel or the investigation, we need to have the capability to correct the record, as there are significant policy and messaging ramifications that would flow from a hardened mis-impression."
“We can take this up tomorrow morning at deputies.”
So WHOEVER leaked the edited portions of this e-mail clearly did so to make it appear that the White House was concerned with covering up the fact that Benghazi might be a terrorist attack instead of trying to avoid providing a " hardened mis-impression" while intelligence gathering was still going on.
So ABC News has a serious problem on their hands, and they can start repairing the damage by firing Jonathon Karl and promising to never use the Weekly Standard (Warning! goes to Breitbart) as a source again.
On the other hand it looks like CNN is starting to do some real reporting and to repair the damage does not heir reputation during the Boston Bombing investigation.
Do you think that there are "moles" in government departments who want to bring Obama down?
ReplyDeleteSometimes I truly wonder, especially with all these stories breaking at the same time and bringing the President's agenda to a screeching halt. I did find it interesting that the reporter who broke the story of the emails was the same one who asked the President if he still had enough juice to get anything done. So I think whomever leaked it saw ABC as being their best bet. Then, who breaks the IRS story, ABC. Too many coincidences.
DeleteI believe it. Just before Bush was to leave office he places several of his supporters in various government positions. These people were supposed to be in place like moles to help the republicans in any future covert actions they wanted to take against President Obama.
DeleteJake Tapper blows a hole in Benghazi `scandal’
ReplyDeleteCNN’s Jake Tapper scoops:
CNN has obtained an email sent by a top aide of President Barack Obama, in which the aide discusses the Obama administration reaction to the attack on the U.S. posts in Benghazi, Libya. The actual email differs from how sources were inaccurately quoted and paraphrased in previous media accounts.
The significance of the email seems to be that whomever leaked the inaccurate information earlier this month did so in a way that made it appear that the White House – specifically deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes – was more interested in the State Department’s desire to remove mentions of specific terrorist groups and warnings about these groups so as to not bring criticism to the State Department than Rhodes’ email actually stated.
The actual email is right here. The key portion is this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/05/14/jake-tapper-blows-a-hole-in-benghazi-scandal/
Benghazi Bombshell: Leaked Emails Were Edited to Make Obama Look Bad
ReplyDeleteTurns out the press got played again by Republicans. Jake Tapper has the smoking gun of the original email from the Obama administration which differs significantly from the “leaked emails” ABC ran with.
In an exclusive for CNN, Tapper reveals that CNN has the original email sent by a top Obama aide, regarding the administration’s reaction to the Benghazi attacks. Tapper reported, “The actual email differs from how sources characterized it to two different media organizations.”
“The actual email from then-Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes appears to show that whomever leaked it did so in a way that made it appear that the White House primarily concerned with the State Department’s desire to remove references and warnings about specific terrorist groups so as to not bring criticism to the department,” Tapper concludes (my bold).
The email was sent on Friday, September 14, 2012, at 9:34 p.m. and was obtained by CNN from a U.S. government source. Ironically, the email points out that there is a “ton of wrong information” coming from Congress and people who are not particularly informed (waving hello to Congressional Republicans and Mitt Romney):
“Sorry to be late to this discussion. We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation.
“There is a ton of wrong information getting out into the public domain from Congress and people who are not particularly informed. Insofar as we have firmed up assessments that don’t compromise intel or the investigation, we need to have the capability to correct the record, as there are significant policy and messaging ramifications that would flow from a hardened mis-impression.
“We can take this up tomorrow morning at deputies.”
Read the full email here.
Tapper notes how ABC and the Weekly Standard covered the leaked emails, which were “paraphrased” “inaccurately” and “inventing the notion” that the White House tried to protect the State Department:
Whoever provided those quotes and paraphrases did so inaccurately, seemingly inventing the notion that Rhodes wanted the concerns of the State Department specifically addressed. Nuland, particularly, had expressed a desire to remove mentions of specific terrorist groups and CIA warnings about the increasingly dangerous assignment. Rhodes put no emphasis at all in his email on the State Department’s concerns.
Previous reporting also misquoted Rhodes as saying the group would work through the talking points at the deputies meeting on Saturday, September 15, when the talking points to Congress were finalized. While the previously written subject line of the email mentions talking points, Rhodes only addresses misinformation in a general sense.
Tapper condemned the leaker as having the agenda to make the White House look like they were protecting the State Department.
This is why we do not run with these stories when they first come out. Consistently over Obama’s first term, we found that when the facts come out later (as I pointed out in the new shiny ball IRS scandal story), it has turned out that the stories were being planted in the press. The information was wrong. There was an agenda afloat.
What is even worse for Republicans is that the real email expresses dismay at the uninformed spreading bullcrap. The only people screaming bullcrap about Benghazi were Republicans who sought to use it to win an election.
Another day, another conspiracy debunked. Now, when will the press stop falling for this crap? Note to the media, the next time a “Republican congressional aide” or unnamed source has a smoking gun OMG!!!! Nixon Bush scandal, you might want to find a back up source, and get the original documents before being Breitbarted by edited emails/videos/etc.
http://www.politicususa.com/jake-tapper-destroys-republican-benghazi-conspiracy-turns-emails-paraphrased.html
CNN speculates that whoever leaked the White House emails "seemingly invented the notion" that Rhodes, a White House official, wanted State's concerns specifically addressed. Asked about the ABC report on Friday, White House press secretary Jay Carney said that the only edit the administration made to the talking points was to a "non-substantive correction," changing the word "consulate" to "diplomatic post."
ReplyDeleteCarney on Tuesday accused Republicans of editing the emails in order to to serve a political agenda.
"I think the entire e-mail, the report I read showed the entire e-mail, and what it showed is Republicans who were leaking these press, these e-mails that had been shared with Congress didn't just do that, they decided to fabricate portions of an e-mail and make up portions of an e-mail in order to fit a political narrative," he said at a White House press conference.
Looks like Dickless Cheney is behind this:
ReplyDeleteStephen Hayes, the first journalist to print the doctored email as fact:
Stephen F. Hayes (born 1974) is a columnist for The Weekly Standard, a prominent American conservative magazine. Hayes has been selected as the official biographer for Vice President Richard Cheney.
Mister Cheney, who just yesterday (or today?), coincidentally said Benghazi was the worst thing he had ever seen in government, maybe has some 'splainin' to do.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/05/14/1209061/-GOP-BS-Fail-Benghazi-White-House-Emails-were-Doctored
Dick Cheney thinks Benghazi was the worst thing he had ever seen in government? Oh that is rich. Nothing terrible happened when he was vice president, right?
DeleteHayes is a small-pricked republican operative. Emphasis on small is his wife's.
DeleteThese fools have no shame. They got the blueberry pie all over their face and not one of them admits the truth, as Rev Al would say.
Forget everything you think you know about Benghazi ... here is THE definitive timeline
ReplyDeleteDecember 12, 2012: Kentucky: Hillary Clinton would beat Paul, Rubio in 2016
January 10, 2013: Clinton could be unstoppable if she runs in 2016
January 17, 2013: Clinton could beat Bush and Rubio in Florida in 2016
January 31, 2013: Clinton could win Texas in 2016
February 8, 2013: Clinton potentially competitive in Alaska
February 14, 2013: Clinton tied or ahead against GOP candidates in Louisiana
February 28, 2013: Clinton would beat Walker, Ryan in Wisconsin in 2016
March 21, 2013: Clinton's popularity soars in Florida while Rubio stumbles
April 11, 2013: Clinton and Paul are neck and neck in Kentucky
April 25, 2013: Clinton would be dominant in New Hampshire in 2016
May 8, 2013: Republicans decide it's time to find out just how responsible Hillary Clinton is for the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi
Any questions?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/05/14/1209029/-Forget-everything-you-think-you-know-about-Benghazi-here-is-THE-definitive-timeline
Any Paul will never be that close to the presidency.
Deletehttp://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/05/14/1209008/-RNC-targets-Hillary-Clinton-in-its-first-2016-attack-ad
ReplyDeletehttp://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/05/14/1209008/-RNC-targets-Hillary-Clinton-in-its-first-2016-attack-ad
Well, who is it that using edited version to provide false impressions (or downright lie?)
ReplyDeleteFox News comes immediately to mind.
and all their right wing domestic terrorist 503c minions immediately after.
It won't make a bit of difference. The problem is that those that want to believe will embrace the edited lie rather than the proven truth.
Because they can't handle the truth.
I'm so happy that this happened when it did, even if it IS Jake Tapper. It's a fabulous coup de grace in my civilized debate (yes, really) with a wingnut on Facebook. I led her away from her wingnut lies down the path to the realization that the only truth is in the source documents- and Jake Tapper did the rest!
ReplyDeleteI don't know if she learned anything or changed in any way, but I have convincingly won that argument using nothing but the facts.
I've not been able to get beyond Mitt Romney's unalloyed joy at the Benghazi attack almost as soon as anyone knew it had happened. He was so sure that it was going to prove valuable to his election that I've wondered ever since if there was some kind of plot behind it all, especially given that the film (which was made by or funded by or produced by a right-wing Californian) provided cover for the riots and the attack that all happened at the same time. And remember thatt McCain and Graham, the boy Bobbsey twins of the US Senate), were in Libya just a couple of months before all of this happened. They were there talking about weapons for Syria, of all things. Not quite legal I'm sure. Lots of questions but ones I would direct to the GOP.
ReplyDeleteBeaglemom
I'm a HUGE fan every time you comment here, Beaglemom. You've done your homework, lady.
DeleteCIP
The Day Jonathan Karl Ran Out Of Juice
ReplyDeletehttp://theobamadiary.com/2013/05/14/the-day-jonathan-karl-ran-out-of-juice/
The epidemic of Benghazi Syndrome "In the end, it all comes down to an irrational and absolutely rabid dislike of Obama that so clouds judgment that utterly preposterous statements are uttered, usually within the precincts of the Fox News studios."
ReplyDeletehttp://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/richard-cohen-the-epidemic-of-benghazi-syndrome/2013/05/13/18eb2ee2-bc04-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_story.html?tid=socialss
Why are they trying to impeach Obama over Benghazi?
ReplyDeleteBecause they can't impeach him for being black.
Would it not be just as likely that they doctored a document to appear that the wording was in such a way that it would appear that the Obama administration did not have an agenda?
ReplyDelete