Terror reference scrubbed during 12 edits of Libya talking points; Lapdogs spin
http://twitter.com/#!/redsteeze/status/332818592427036672
#Benghazi now trending No. 1 in US after talking points revisions revealed in ABC report twitter.com/passantino/sta…
— Jon Passantino (@passantino) May 10, 2013
So about those revisions of the Benghazi talking points that the White House claimed “were put together almost entirely by the intelligence community”:
.@presssec YouLie! RT @rickklein: Carney said only one word of #Benghazi talkingpoints were changed clearly not case po.st/097syx
— Barbara McMahon (@southsalem) May 10, 2013
Caught. Out. There.
PDF of the #Benghazi talking point edits & strike-thrus. Be sure to read to the end. Incredible transformation. abcnews.go.com/images/Politic…
— Cuffé (@CuffyMeh) May 10, 2013
ABC’s Jonathan Karl reports that the Benghazi talking points underwent 12 revisions with “extensive input from the State Department.” Terror reference? Scrubbed. And in unsurprising news, the White House was involved:
White House emails reviewed by ABC News suggest the edits were made with extensive input from the State Department. The edits included requests from the State Department that references to the Al Qaeda-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia be deleted as well references to CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack.
That would appear to directly contradict what White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said about the talking points in November.
People died, Jay Carney lied.
But I though Jay Carney said they only changed 1 word? WH #Benghazi talking points went through 12 revisions abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics…
— David Burge (@iowahawkblog) May 10, 2013
Here’s @presssec lying to ABC’s @jonkarl‘s face youtu.be/AoTSrZ6yGIg And here’s Karl’s response: abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics…
— Cuffé (@CuffyMeh) May 10, 2013
Not only were the facts deleted, the reason for the deletion was given —> That it would make the State Department look bad.
— Lee Doren (@LDoren) May 10, 2013
Cover-up? What cover-up?
In an email to officials at the White House and the intelligence agencies, State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland took issue with including that information [on al Qaida-linked extremists] because it “could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either? Concerned …”
The paragraph was entirely deleted.
What say you, Jay Carney?
“I personally know of 3 different Victoria Nulands” – @presssec
— S.M (@redsteeze) May 10, 2013
“So who wants to talk about Kermit Gosnell?” – @presssec in about 3 hours.
— S.M (@redsteeze) May 10, 2013
Suggest we all make #stylisticandnonsubstantive edits when reporting Carney’s talking points.
— Sirius U. Guise (@vermontaigne) May 10, 2013
“Jay Carney wouldn’t lie to me, our kids go to the same school.” – every last fucking reporter in Washington
— David Burge (@iowahawkblog) May 10, 2013
When you remove the truth from your “talking points” they become lies. That’s how it works. #benghazi
— Matt Cover (@MattCover) May 10, 2013
Read the original CIA talking points, then read them after the twelve WH edits. Now tell me which one was closer to the truth. #JustAddLies
— David Burge (@iowahawkblog) May 10, 2013
After reading these emails, anyone who dismisses the Benghazi cover up is instantly disqualified from being taken seriously.
— Lee Doren (@LDoren) May 10, 2013
Expect some VERY pissed off “journalists” today for the audacity of some of their colleagues like Jon Karl doing their job #tcot
— Rick(@StrokesofCandor) May 10, 2013
Wow. How do Victoria Nuland and Jay Carney keep their jobs after this?
— RB (@RBPundit) May 10, 2013
How do they keep their jobs? Spin, lapdogs, spin!
LIBERAL talking point ALERTS ==> RT @joshtpm Benghazi Email Demanded By Boehner Referenced ‘Extremists,’ Not ‘Terrorists’
— Prudence Paine (@PruPaine) May 10, 2013
LIBERAL talking point ALERTS=>MT @joshtpm Email actually didnt reference ‘terrorists’, cimplicating digbat wordgame at heart of non scandal
— Prudence Paine (@PruPaine) May 10, 2013
Media Matters’ Oliver Willis is still trying to play the pitiful and disgraceful “Benghazi truther” card.
Basically cons are asking if track changes in Word are impeachable.
— Oliver Willis (@owillis) May 10, 2013
Gee.. I wonder why you’re not taken more seriously. RT @owillis: Obama: “it’s cloudy”Cons: “it’s only partly cloudy. Impeach!”
— Tim Wells (@RightWingNerd) May 10, 2013
Evidently Media Matters’ Eric Boehlert didn’t read his talking points for today.
Did @ericboehlert delete this tweet where he exposes the fact that he doesn’t read articles before commenting? twitter.com/ag_conservativ…
— RB (@RBPundit) May 10, 2013
The tweet was swiftly deleted.
Here is @ericboehlert claiming the ABC report says the exact opposite of what it actually says… twitter.com/AG_Conservativ…
— AG (@AG_Conservative) May 10, 2013
7 am and already deleting tweets @ericboehlert .. Oh you’re in for a great fucking Friday… #Benghazi
— S.M (@redsteeze) May 10, 2013
@ag_conservative “Silly AG! State Dept. is not WH!” Just wait…
— Cuffé (@CuffyMeh) May 10, 2013
Poor @ericboehlert deleted this tweet when reality crept into his world twitter.com/AG_Conservativ… Thankfully @ag_conservative saved it. #Dope
— Derek Hunter (@derekahunter) May 10, 2013
Ahem:
“We thus will work through the talking points tomorrow morning at the Deputies Committee meeting.” – Dep NSC Adv Ben Rhodes aka White House
— Cuffé (@CuffyMeh) May 10, 2013
I’m against GoFundMe campaigns on principle but I may start one to raise funds for a literacy coach for@ericboehlert Quite sad, that one.
— LilMissBourbonBroad (@LilMissRightie) May 10, 2013
But most good little lapdogs appear to be sticking to this spin:
The big response to all the #Benghazi revelations is for them to argue there’s a huge difference between writing extremists & terrorists?
— AG (@AG_Conservative) May 10, 2013
Because, hey, what difference does it make, right?
How it works: Deny. Dig in. Claim it doesn’t matter. It’s just political. Everyone does it. It doesn’t matter. Blame Bush. SQUIRREL!
— Rick Wilson (@TheRickWilson) May 10, 2013
Soon to be @mmfa line: “Press Secretaries are supposed to lie. That’s their job.” <- 100% guaranteed.
— RB (@RBPundit) May 10, 2013
What we learned from Benghazi apologists:expecting govt to give truthful information makes you a tinfoil-hat wearing conspiracy theorist.
— Kirsten Powers (@kirstenpowers10) May 10, 2013
On what planet is officially scrubbing facts from public statements to avoid scrutiny and accountability not a cover-up?
— Matt Cover (@MattCover) May 10, 2013
shorter media: our sources (w/ kindergarten reasoning skills) say the benghazi talking points may have been altered. DEVELOPING…
— Ryan (@alwaysonoffense) May 10, 2013
Breathtakingly brazen. RT @hughhewitt: Who did the editing? abcnews.go.com/m/blogEntry?id… #Benghazi
— Glen Asbury (@glenasbury) May 10, 2013
Media talking point for today:
Now the only media angle left to deflect #Benghazi story is to pretend this is just a Republican witch hunt, facts be damned.
— AG (@AG_Conservative) May 10, 2013
Oh, that’s not the only remaining angle:
One thing we know for sure regarding the ABC News report..George W. Bush has a lot to answer for. #Benghazi
— S.M (@redsteeze) May 10, 2013
Comments are closed.