What Cover-Up? Benghazi Talking Points Underwent 12 Revisions, Scrubbed of Terror Reference

Posted by on May 10, 2013 at 7:13 am

We could see a revision here or there to clarify things, but when you have to revise your cover-up story 12 times, we’re starting to thing you have something to hide. Time to get all involved under oath. At some point they’ll start turning on each other.

When it became clear last fall that the CIA’s now discredited Benghazi talking points were flawed, the White House said repeatedly the documents were put together almost entirely by the intelligence community, but White House documents reviewed by Congress suggest a different story.

ABC News has obtained 12 different versions of the talking points that show they were extensively edited as they evolved from the drafts first written entirely by the CIA to the final version distributed to Congress and to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice before she appeared on five talk shows the Sunday after that attack.

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.

“Those talking points originated from the intelligence community.  They reflect the IC’s best assessments of what they thought had happened,” Carney told reporters at the White House press briefing on November 28, 2012.  “The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two institutions were changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility’ because ‘consulate’ was inaccurate.”

Summaries of White House and State Department emails — some of which were first published by Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard — show that the State Department had extensive input into the editing of the talking points.

For all the talk about State Department officials here, who on the Obama campaign had input on this? It’s quite evident their concocted tale that al Qaeda wad finished was fantasy and the Benghazi attack posed a threat in the midst of a campaign. If only Mitt Romney had the guts to run this ad.

Meanwhile, Lindsey Graham says it’s time for Mrs. Clinton to testify under oath.

Graham, interviewed in his Senate office, said Clinton should return to Congress to address the issues raised. Should she be subpoenaed?

“I hope she would come back without that, but yes,” he replied. “I think she needs to come back and answer questions. Did she know that Cheryl Mills called the DCM (deputy chief of mission) to tell him, watch the member of Congress and don’t talk to him? And there’s now evidence that she was made aware of the security concerns and basically ignored security requests.”

He said Mills and Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and others also should be called to testify about the attacks. Those killed included Christopher Stephens, the first U.S. ambassador to die in the line of duty in a generation.

12 Responses to “What Cover-Up? Benghazi Talking Points Underwent 12 Revisions, Scrubbed of Terror Reference”

  1. Rusty Bill on 10/10/13 at 8:22 am

    “Time to get all involved under oath.”

    Why bother? They’ll just lie, or refuse to answer.

    “At some point they’ll start turning on each other.”


  2. It's those damn kids! on 10/10/13 at 11:08 am

    She’ll just come down with a stomach bug and not be able to testify until after 2016.

  3. Lightwave on 10/10/13 at 11:18 am

    The liberal media smells blood now. First, CBS, now ABC. We’re not too far removed from the point where even MSNBC will be wall-to-wall Benghzi-gate. Maybe weeks at most.

    The cover-up is the crime here. Clinton resigned because she had no choice.

  4. Tom22ndState on 10/10/13 at 12:14 pm

    Agreed Lightwire, but only the eventuality of disclosure not the timeliness of same. I had initially believed the Rs had erred in holding a one day hearing but I have hope that there is MUCH more just waiting to come out.

    Nixon’s problems only truly began when the career government officials revolted and the leaks became torrents of embarrasing information which his people tried to cover-up in a hasty and clumsy manner. How much more so will foreign intrigue excite the press? Let us hope that these three patriots are the first in an exodus of citizens from Bablyon and tell the horrible truths they know.

  5. lyle on 10/10/13 at 1:39 pm

    We’re not too far removed from the point where even MSNBC will be wall-to-wall Benghzi-gate.

    In what universe, again?

  6. It's those damn kids! on 10/10/13 at 4:34 pm

    Um, yeah, MSNBC will hardly go crazy on this story. Unless, you mean go wall to wall with paper coverings provided by the White House.

  7. Doc on 11/11/13 at 11:52 am

    Don’t be too quick to believe that the MSM will truthfully investigate this shameful incident….oh, they will pretend to, but in the end, it will be business as usual and polishing the turd will continue as always. Fucking media scum will protect the demotard scum not media scum.

  8. Questioner on 12/12/13 at 8:30 pm

    Does anyone find it really ODD that the Administration would admit to the IRS targeting dissidents at the same time Bengahzi is blowing up?