Decision made to drop reference to jihad terror group from Benghazi talking points at meeting in White House

All the way to the top. “CNN: Decision was made to drop reference to terror group from talking points at meeting in White House,” from The Right Scoop, May 10 (thanks to Jerk Chicken):

Jim Acosta from CNN did a great report on how the Benghazi talking points came to be and in the report he suggested that it was a meeting at the White House that the decision was made to remove references to Ansar al Sharia:

An email dated September 14 at 7:39PM, State Department Spokeswoman Victora Nuland wrote “Why do we want the Hill fingering Ansar al-Sharia when we aren’t doing that ourselves? And the penultimate point could be abused to beat the State Department for not paying attention to agency warnings.” At that point the emails indicate the references to Ansar al Sharia were removed.

But Nuland chimed in again “These don’t resolve all of my issues or those of my building’s leadership. they are consulting with NSS (National Security Council Staff).”

One minute later Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s Deputy Chief of Staff emails “I spoke with Tommy. We”ll work this through in the morning. Get comments back.

Then Ben Rhodes, a top national security official warns the talking points shouldn’t jeopardize the investigation and tables the discussion for a White House meeting the next day, when it appears the decision was made to drop the reference to the terror group.

Top Obama official's brother is president of CBS News, may drop reporter over "aggressive" Benghazi coverage
"The United States has become a tool of Muslim Brotherhood expansionism"
FacebookTwitterLinkedInDiggBlogger PostDeliciousEmailPinterestRedditStumbleUponPrint

Comments

  1. says

    ***PAID TROLL ALERT***

    AMERICANA *** BURQA TROLL *** AMERICANA

    MUXLIM *** BURQA TROLL *** MUXLIM

    AMERICANA who also posts as MUXLIM suddenly appeared here on JW in the last several weeks. I strongly believe *IT* to be a paid troll, *Paid* for each post IT makes. I also believe IT is a Muslim, or Muslim sympathizer, or at least an infiltrator to sow seeds of dissent, distraction and division. I have observed IT engage and enrage many regular posters here, in a short period of time, with banal counter-intuitive arguments. IT has annoyed “Champ”, “George”, “Miriam Rove” and many others. In an argument with Champ IT claimed to be a “Female”, which is why I call “IT” IT as IT’s writing style is distinctly masculine in nature.

    It is remarkable the amount of drivel IT has produced in a few short weeks and the number of posters IT has offended; and the actual number of IT’s posts is far beyond normal. IT claims to be from the Boston area but with “strong” British connections and British experience (now enhanced to include many international connections and influential family and other connections). IT is constantly morphing and Chameleon- like adopting and adapting to and with IT’s interactions here to become all things to all entities. The truth matters little to IT. IT salts its nonsense with half-truths and dis-information to elicit controversy, thus occasioning responses it can in turn, respond to in an ever-burgeoning morass of garbage. *BUT* IT is paid for each of these so the more we engage IT, the more it profits.

    IT tries to position itself as supporting the counter-jihad position but has a host of non-viable platforms, which clearly demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding of the basic tenets of Islam or it is just deliberate obfuscation. IT’s basic argument is that Islam needs to self-reform and establish an international forum of “moderate” Mullahs to call for reform. Fat chance that. The quintessential non-starter.

    IT writes long puerile sections while trying to pretend IT is in agreement. IT”s intent is to draw posters into endless debate about issues that have no traction thus diminishing the value and information in the article thread. All Classic communist agitate/propaganda techniques.

    Ignore IT.

    Don’t waste your time engaging IT in any way. Trolls are paid for EACH post. This is why they begin arguments. The more the merrier, from their perspective. If there is no engagement, they move on eventually. Persona is difficult to camouflage. I will keep an eye for additional new monikers.

    Click here http://goo.gl/lwSsI for the profile, behaviour and tactics of a PAID TROLL.

    Max.

    ***PAID TROLL ALERT***

    AMERICANA *** BURQA TROLL *** AMERICANA

    MUXLIM *** BURQA TROLL *** MUXLIM

  2. says

    Quote:

    “Then Ben Rhodes, a top national security official warns the talking points shouldn’t jeopardize the investigation and tables the discussion for a White House meeting the next day, when it appears the decision was made to drop the reference to the terror group.

    FWIW: Ben Rhodes has worked for Obama since 2007, as deputy national security agent at State and works under National Security Advisor Tom Donilon. Ben Rhodes drafted the infamous final Benghazi talking points issued to Susan Rice & also wrote Obama’s infamous Cairo speech.

    David Rhodes, president of CBS News just happens to be a brother of Ben.

    Oh what a tangled web they weave when once they practice to deceive.

  3. says

    Update:
    via NewsBusters

    “CBS News President David Rhodes and ABC News President Ben Sherwood, both of them have siblings that not only work at the White House, that not only work for President Obama, but they work at the NSC on foreign policy issues directly related to Benghazi.

  4. says

    Remember what Mitt Romney said immediately after the attack: that Obama’s instinctive reaction to the Libya attack was to blame an American exercising his freedom of expression (i.e. making a video about the Muslim god Mohammed).

    Of course Romney was absolutely correct. Too bad that in the 2nd debate he didnt hammer this point a lot more.

  5. says

    Boy, that’s not what I remember Romney saying, Lohengrin. Romney basically agreed w/the comments made by both Pres. Obama and SecState Hillary Clinton. Romney did also stress the aspect of the freedom of speech guaranteed under the U.S. Constution. Perhaps that’s what your memory is focused on, Lohengrin? Of course, we all know that freedom of speech in Muslim societies is absolutely verboten when it comes to you-know-who…
    __________________________________________________________________

    http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/09/mitt-romney-condemns-anti-muslim-film-echoing-white-house-position.php

    compounds in the Mideast on Thursday, accusing its director of wrongly offending Islamic sensibilities. His comments appeared to move him in line with the White House’s own position.

    Romney told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos that while he had not seen the film himself, he knew enough to declare it a “very bad thing.”

    “You know, I think it’s dispiriting sometimes to see some of the awful things people say,” Romney said. “And the idea of using something that some people consider sacred and then parading that out a negative way is simply inappropriate and wrong. And I wish people wouldn’t do it.”

    Romney said that the film is clearly legal under the Constitution.

    “Of course, we have a First Amendment, and under the First Amendment, people are allowed to do what they feel they want to do,” he said. “They have the right to do that, but it’s not right to do things that are of the nature of what was done by, apparently this film.”

    The Republican nominee also condemned Florida pastor Terry Jones, whose burning of a Koran sparked deadly attacks abroad in 2011, for promoting the film.

    “I think the whole film is a terrible idea,” he said. “I think him making it, promoting it showing it is disrespectful to people of other faiths. I don’t think that should happen. I think people should have the common courtesy and judgment “- the good judgment ” not to be ” not to offend other peoples’ faiths. It’s a very bad thing, I think, this guy’s doing.”

    Romney’s comments denouncing the film while simultaneously standing up for freedom of speech were nearly identical to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s statements in the wake of the deadly attacks on Libya and Egypt (although it is not yet clear in Libya how much the film contributed towards the crisis).

    Clinton called the film “disgusting and reprehensible” on Thursday, but also called on national and religious leaders around the world to denounce violence in response to it. She added that in America, “we do not stop individual citizens from expressing their views no matter how distasteful they may be.”

  6. says

    Lohengrin wrote:

    (i.e. making a video about the Muslim god Mohammed).
    A Freudian slip I think, but happens to be accurate. :)

  7. says

    Basically I don’t believe much of anything coming from the gov…The lies coming out of there are thick as cold honey…Who’s side are they on anyway?

  8. says

    From post above…The way to deal with trolls is ignore them. That is, don’t post ANY response whatsoever!

    But if I did that, I couldn’t tell them how much I appreciate their efforts…When having trouble with a troll, who do you call? ‘Troll Busters’, certified experts on trollology…It’s hard, dirty work, but someone has to do it…

  9. says

    Decision made to drop reference to jihad terror group from Benghazi talking points at meeting in White House
    ……………………..

    And why not? This sort of obfuscation has Obama administration policy from the very beginning.

  10. says

    Thank you.

    We need more of these nuggets of “connections”.

    Oh, what a fine line it is hovering, wavering, quivering, between “connections”, “sources” and extended family….and published, “authoritative”, “news”.

    The lessons of “yellow journalism” need to be repeated over, and over and over again with each half-generation of new readers and “reporters”.

    Why? …… because attention spans now are so truncated by Tweets, Twitters, and Texts.

  11. says

    I was referring to the original statement released by Romney’s campaign, not to watered-down, later versions. And yes, Hillary and Obama admonished the creator of the video over its content. The US government is NOT supposed to condemn the content of the free speech of its citizens. They ARE supposed to DEFEND free speech, especially when it is offensive.

    PS: Why do you always have these long, confused and confusing posts?

  12. says

    We have a pattern in the O’s administration of trying sly little tricks in dealing with inconvenient matters. Worse, these sly little tricks look suspiciously like probes against the defenses of the First Amendment.

    Nakoula Basiley Nakoula was an easy target for the administration since he was already in legal trouble. The administration took a gamble that blaming him for igniting riots in foreign parts would obscure such things as those riots taking place on 09/11, or that RPG were taken to “spontaneous” demonstrations.

    We also have HSA ordering relgious employers to pay abortion and contraceptive coverage for employees, even when these contradict deeply held religious convictions; the quickness with which the administration pounced on Terry Jones over the burning of the Qur’an; and signing on to the OIC’s search for a global ban on anti-Islamic blasphemy (never mind that the Qur’an itself blasphemes against the Jesus Christ of the New Testament). Finally, the IRS has just admitted it erred in its special scrutiny of the Tea Party (which would not have happened had the Tea Party not been a vociferous and somewhat effective critic of the O).

    Basically,for the O and his coterie, the concerns and sensitivities of political clients trump the Constitution. This holds whether those clients are the abortion lobby at home or Islam abroad.