Benghazi--"All Talk and No Stick" indeed

[Anonymous]

Well, turns out the whole email "scandal" was a lot of manufactured sound and fury, signifying nothing...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/05/14/cnn-blows-huge-hole-in-gop-efforts-to-prosecute-benghazi-scandal/

[Anonymous]

Shocker!

[Anonymous]

Yes, this from the Forbes writer who writes "from the left". Surprise, surprise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous



Yes, this from the Forbes writer who writes "from the left". Surprise, surprise.

Oh so sourcing matters? Advantage democrats!

[Anonymous]

I do have a problem with that. It's extremely vague. I would need to see the whole email chain.

In addition, we also can see the changes in the talking points - certainly more than the one the White House claimed through Carney.

Given there are two additional scandals, it stands to reason that something is not right in this administration. The President claims to get his news with all of us. If true, that's alarming. I suspect it isn't...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, this from the Forbes writer who writes "from the left". Surprise, surprise.

Wow, you blame the bias of the author, when we can all read the actual email that is the subject from the story.

Wingnuts are such sheep.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, this from the Forbes writer who writes "from the left". Surprise, surprise.

Wow, you blame the bias of the author, when we can all read the actual email that is the subject from the story.

Wingnuts are such sheep.

One email. Where's the chain?

[Anonymous]

Breaking news: 100 emails have been released by the White House in the last hour.

[Anonymous]

White House releases Benghazi emails, documents show 'Al Qaeda' flagged in early versions

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/15/white-house-releases-100-pages-e-mails-notes-related-to-benghazi/#ixzz2TOvl8xvs

Early versions of the Obama administration's internal account regarding the Benghazi attack did in fact state that "Islamic extremists with ties to Al Qaeda" participated in the assault -- though the line was later taken out -- according to emails and notes the White House released late Wednesday.
The White House released 100 pages of emails and notes related to the administration's response to the attack on a diplomatic facility in Benghazi, Libya, last September.
The White House had until now declined to make the documents public and had let congressional investigators review the documents without making copies.
The documents describe how the administration developed "talking points" to describe what the administration wanted to discuss publicly immediately after the Sept. 11, 2012, attack that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:White House releases Benghazi emails, documents show 'Al Qaeda' flagged in early versions

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/15/white-house-releases-100-pages-e-mails-notes-related-to-benghazi/#ixzz2TOvl8xvs

Early versions of the Obama administration's internal account regarding the Benghazi attack did in fact state that "Islamic extremists with ties to Al Qaeda" participated in the assault -- though the line was later taken out -- according to emails and notes the White House released late Wednesday.
The White House released 100 pages of emails and notes related to the administration's response to the attack on a diplomatic facility in Benghazi, Libya, last September.
The White House had until now declined to make the documents public and had let congressional investigators review the documents without making copies.
The documents describe how the administration developed "talking points" to describe what the administration wanted to discuss publicly immediately after the Sept. 11, 2012, attack that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.

It makes sense when they were going back and forth about Al Qaeda. We know that someone claimed credit but then the group denied involvement.

[Anonymous]

It makes sense when they were going back and forth about Al Qaeda. We know that someone claimed credit but then the group denied involvement

So, we rely on al Qaeda for our intelligence?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It makes sense when they were going back and forth about Al Qaeda. We know that someone claimed credit but then the group denied involvement

So, we rely on al Qaeda for our intelligence?

Can you recall situations when Al Qaeda did not take credit for things they consider to be terrorist accomplishments?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:White House releases Benghazi emails, documents show 'Al Qaeda' flagged in early versions

You realize that al-Qaida didn't do it don't you? The group behind it was Ansar Al-Sharia.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It makes sense when they were going back and forth about Al Qaeda. We know that someone claimed credit but then the group denied involvement

So, we rely on al Qaeda for our intelligence?

Can you recall situations when Al Qaeda did not take credit for things they consider to be terrorist accomplishments?

Actually, as I recall, al-Qaida didn't take credit for 9/11 for quite a while. Bin Laden actually denied it for some time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It makes sense when they were going back and forth about Al Qaeda. We know that someone claimed credit but then the group denied involvement

So, we rely on al Qaeda for our intelligence?

Can you recall situations when Al Qaeda did not take credit for things they consider to be terrorist accomplishments?

This is the problem in the initial days. http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/24/us/libya-benghazi-e-mails

Someone posts a message on Facebook. The next day Ansar Al-Sharia denies involvement. Why would they not take credit for something they would consider a victory?

So when you are trying to tell the public what happened and you have multiple conflicting pieces of information, you may be going back and forth on what to say to the public until you can determine which sources are true and which ones are false.