Getty Images
A fire burns at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi in September.
The partisan hysteria surrounding the September attack in Benghazi has taken a deescalating trajectory -- the scope of the conspiracy theories and unhinged criticism has grown narrower, not broader, over time.
As of yesterday, the overarching question from the right was reduced to this: the talking points made available to U.S. officials four days after the attack were slightly edited, with the word "extremists" replacing the word "terrorists." This, Republicans have argued, is critically important because, well, just because. The "scandal" conservatives are comparing to Watergate has narrowed to a discussion over word choice.
On the Sunday shows, Republicans said identifying who changed one word to another is a question that demands an answer. As it turns out, the answer is now available.
The intelligence community -- not the White House, State Department or Justice Department -- was responsible for the substantive changes made to the talking points distributed for government officials who spoke publicly about the attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, the spokesman for the director of national intelligence said Monday.
The unclassified talking points on Libya, developed several days after the deadly attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, were not substantively changed by any agency outside of the intelligence community, according to the spokesman, Shawn Turner.
The talking point initially pointed to al Qaeda involvement, but officials didn't want to divulge too much in non-classified materials, especially in light of classified sourcing, so the word "extremists" was used. Who made the change? The intelligence community. Why did they make the change? For entirely legitimate reasons related to intelligence and national security.
Why is this scandalous? It's not.
"First, the information about individuals linked to al Qaeda was derived from classified sources," an official told CNN. "Second, when links were so tenuous -- as they still are -- it makes sense to be cautious before pointing fingers so you don't set off a chain of circular and self-reinforcing assumptions. Third, it is important to be careful not to prejudice a criminal investigation in its early stages."
So, are congressional Republicans prepared to finally move on? Apparently, not yet.
The House Intelligence Committee was not satisfied with Turner's statement.
"The statement released this evening by the DNI's spokesman regarding how the Intelligence Community's talking points were changed gives a new explanation that differs significantly from information provided in testimony to the Committee last week," said committee spokeswoman Susan Phalen. "Chairman Rogers looks forward to discussing this new explanation with Director Clapper as soon as possible to understand how the DNI reached this conclusion and why leaders of the Intelligence Community testified late last week that they were unaware of who changed the talking points."
Kevin Drum's sarcasm rings true.
[Republicans'] dissatisfaction stems, apparently, from the fact that last week witnesses told them they didn't know who changed the words. But this week, after further investigation, they suddenly do know. That simply makes no sense. No sense, I tell you! It's inexplicable that when they ask people questions and then give them time to investigate, those people return with additional information.
Leave a Comment:
McCain is attempting to force Kerry to be nominated as Secty of State in an effort to give Brown a shot at the then vacated Senate Seat? Besides, what else can the GOP do to try to divert attention from a staggering electoral loss.
This would make sense if Kerry was not perfectly willing to accept Secretary of Defense. He would prefer Secretary of State, but either way his seat will be open by spring.
Almost makes me nostalgic for the days of Trans-vaginal Ultrasound and legitimate rape.
i agree, that is part of the reason, if not all of it.
I am of the opinion that McCain fears what Kerry would do at DOD. The premise about McCain's hidden agenda is nonsense because Obama needs Kerry's experienced hand and Kerry will step up if asked- that's the kind of guy he is. So Kerry's seat will be vacated either way.
This does not mean a return of Brown. The Massachusetts Senate seat could easily be taken by Rachel Maddow. Whether she steps up and does her duty is the only question. My opinion is that she is content to remain in her pleasant coccoon of adoration, unwilling to venture away from the warm embrace of her loving supporters and suffer the harsh realities of political combat.
On the other hand, she is quite heroic, so she may suit up and parachute in. I am sure most people in her world are telling her what a dumb idea it would be. I don't blame them. I would hate to lose a working relationship with such a remarkable individual. Her leadership is needed for something even more important though.
As the biggest unquestioned holy cow, DOD requires a strong and knowlegable hand. They are making important diversions of funding into alternative energy but a weak hand could easily let the money go to boondoggle projects that delver marginal increases in capability at exorbitant cost, or shun innovative approaches because they would make well loved, traditional but ineffective systems obsolete.
You are 100% correct about Kerry being a team player, and the likely opening of a Senate seat. I disagree that Rachel is needed to beat Scott Brown, as much as we all would love to see her have at Mitch McConnell. The Democrat would likely win whomever they nominate. There is no ACA to demogogue for Brown, and no complacent Coakely. Brown went along way way too many fillibusters and Blunt Amendments to win again, and he campaigned like a wingnut.
I think you underestimate Maddow. It is more than charisma. Have you not seen how well she juggles those monumental egos on the panels she has moderated? She is respectful, interested and though people may violently disagree with her, they also trust her to behave fairly because they know she has a great deal of integrity. That is a rare tightrope to be able to walk in real time.
This is not a wish for some spectacle WWF grudge match. This has to do with sending people to do real politics. The kind where people of starkly opposed political viewpoints find common ground quietly and responsibly engage in governance.
That takes a remarkable level of interpersonal skills. Pelosi has it, and though there may be many things she can pick up from more experienced hands, so does Maddow. Pelosi will not live forever. We need someone for her to pass the torch to.
Rachel. The time for talk is done. It is the time for action.
Regarding the Republicans on this issue, consider what Mark Twain knew in 1873, proving that the more things change, the more they remain the same:
"Consider a congressman, then consider an idiot; ah, but I repeat myself."
Robert DuBois has it exactly right. If Rice goes to State, Kerry is likely to remain in the Senate, despite the opinion of JohnMesserly, who seems to have bought Scott Brown's joke about Rachel wanting to run for Senate.
Obama has many other options for Defense (Michele Flournoy, Jim Webb, and others. I wouldn't underestimate Massachusetts from electing Scott Brown again should Kerry's seat vacate. They did it before and have elected Republicans to statewide seats before (Romney).
Brown would position it as a need for "balance"... He'd, of course, have a ton of money. At times, the electorate has a way of feeling sorry for a loser and giving them their vote. Also, would be an off-cycle election, which can favor Republican candidates.
Obama does not need to make the formal nomination until after the inauguration. If Obama is going to nominate Kerry, then the Massachusetts Dems would get that information well in advance of the formal nomination. That would allow the Dems some time to pick a candidate and raise funds to insure the candidate wins before the nomination is announced. Brown will be at a disadvantage because Dems will already be 2 steps ahead of the Republicans with respect to organizing the campaign. Finally, voters rejected Brown so Republicans would have to seriously consider the possible downside running him for another seat. That downside would be the voters opinions on Brown from the last election. He doesn't get an Etch-A-Sketch moment if he runs again so soon.
@BillBuster - TRMS mugs are available? :) Sorry, just had to put that in there to hopefully show Deb how ridiculous she sounds. I saw the same comment from her on another article. :)
Exactly, Mr. DuBois !!
It is not really a calculated move on McCain's part to keep up this idiotic rhetoric. I believe it stems from his disappointment that he won't be Secretary of Defense or Secretary of State, now that Romney lost. It's all about his own inner angst.
I agree Carlo
McCain is a bitter, vengeful, old man.
John McCain needs a foot up his A$$ frankly. He's been disgusting running his mouth like a school girl. He, of all people, should know how it's important to have an investigation and not have that investigation conducted by TV crews. He should know. He was in his own investigation regarding the Iran-Contra Affair where gun running was going on between Ollie North and the Contra's. McCain sat on that Advisory Board. Of course he calms he left that Board but strangely no one could remember him leaving.
Speaking of Twinkies. You know there is just something that just keeps going through my mind that I do want to know about. First NBC and MSNBC have increased in their ratings, but it was attributable to the very fact that they needed the way to do it. As I see it, many of us bloggers have definitely majorly contributed to changing NBC and MSNBC for the better. And I want to know what is in it for us bloggers who have really contributed majorly to the improvement of NBC and MSNBC, especially financially. Your terms and conditions in my frame of mind suck so if you could explain how it can really benefit us contributing bloggers who have stimulated NBC and MSNBC to change in the right direction? It would be appreciated if you didn’t use the typical business bull crap and pony out something substantial. How much do you really value your bloggers?
What?
Repeat post; DEB seems to have a hidden agenda or maybe a word salad generating program.
word salad. perfect explanation for Deb's post
Sarah, is that you?
Just waiting for the answer, I want to know.
OK, Deb. Here's your answer. YOU are not a blogger here. I am not a blogger. We are commenters.
Steve Benen is a blogger. He runs this "web log" aka blog. That is the series of articles that he and other contributors (Kent Jones, Laura Conaway, etc.) post.
Don't see "By" in front of your name? Then you aren't a contributor either. Just a commenter. What you "get" for your comments is a place to vent, and some agreement, maybe even a green star. Not enough? Start your own blog.
If the point of your post is to suggest that Steve Benen deserves a raise, great. Otherwise I am not sure what your point is.
What are you looking for, Deb? A free toaster or something? How about a TRMS mug? How about "Best blogger wins a date with Rachel"!
Deb....the answer to what? I think there was a question in there somewhere....I did see some question marks, but have no idea what you are even talking about. If you really would like an answer, then please simplify the question.
How much longer are you going to keep this up? Posting on this blog like this is NOT "blogging." If you want to blog, go register one at blogspot.com and have at it. You're getting terrifically boring with your lack of understanding of what is what here. These reposts of the same thing on every thread are turning you into a troll.
@stevef00: I went with the last question. "How much do you really value your bloggers?" in my answer #2.5.
I assume that deb considers herself a blogger --"many of us bloggers have definitely majorly[sic] contributed."
You can substitute commenter with blogger it is just words and waiting for my reply. How much do you value the people who comment here and what is the appreciation for it? Trying to silence a real issue is not going to resolve anything.
Cool, I field-dressed a deer this weekend. That make me a.... Surgeon!
OK, I don't represent NBC, MSNBC, Steve Benen or Rachel Maddow. I don't know if you will get a response from them.
But what I will say is, I don't expect any "appreciation" from this website. The most I expect is that if they appreciate the comments, they maintain sufficient bandwidth, correct any glitches, etc. I occasionally get a green star from other readers. I think one time I wrote some political fiction that was selected in a contest.
As far as I know, only trolls get paid to comment on blogs.
Note the rest of youze: Deb has sent me an email. Twice. Proceed with caution.
Seriously Deb? "You can substitute commenter with blogger it is just words." Huh? You do know that every word has it's own meaning. Blogger is not the same as someone who comments on articles. By the way, commenter is not a word.
A blog is a Web site that contains an online personal journal with reflections, comments, and often hyperlinks provided by the writer.
I want a mug too
Yep I did send a email twice and I want to know how what is available for appreciation for people who come here to make comments that end up being beneficial for the news media, especially financially plus way more than you think. The news media also does make millions and millions of dollars on your beneficial comments that end up helping people, but is also a huge gain financially. What you think I am blind to what real things do go on.
Deb - When you participate in a discussion with other people who may benefit from your insight, do you ask for financial gain? I'm not the most savy person when it comes to blogging and such but I suspect blogging takes more commitment and discipline than commenting. Commenting is something you do for fun in your spare time. If you are commenting expecting some type of financial gain, I suggest you try another venue. Oh, and I believe that bloggers proof read prior to posting.
You can say what you want I am not changing my stance.
Holy mary. You don't have to change your stance, just stop spamming us and this blog with it. Email Rachel if you feel that strongly. But posting over and over and over and refusing to respect that others are sick of hearing you beg for recognition? power? money? is making it very hard to imagine having the slightest respect for anything else you ever post here. So, what's the point?
Denying the truth is pointless and just maintaining a status quo for MSNBC.
articles posted 0
seeded articles 1
shouldn`t you write something, if you want recognition? be a good start, maybe a few shows you can keep up a daily blog.
@Deb - if you think you are not being compensated for your contributions, you can always go on strike.
@MikeInMich "As far as I know, only trolls get paid to comment on blogs." Technically, trolls don't get paid, but shills do. We usually refer to them as paid shills.
And as for me, not having to use Captcha to post is compensation enough for me (nyuk! nyuk!)
Deb blogs? In English?
Translated = We Republicans want our controversy and are going to keep talking about it because we got nothing better to say or do. We need to be relevant and this is the best we've got at the moment.
Just another attempt, and a poorly disguised one at that, to delegitimize our President.
Certain Republicans are desperately trying to transform the actual Benghazi news story into the Rupert Murdoch formulaic tabloid sensationalism model, in order to gain undeserved attention, boost sales and discredit that darn "liberal bias" of the Obama administration. Crucifying Susan Rice fits right in with their twisted narrative. Classified information and rational diplomacy be damned!
"I don't know, I'll get back to you on that." AHA! You're in on the conspiracy! How dare you supply us with information we requested!!!
Idiots trying to drum up a conspiracy where there is none.
And whatever you do don't try to give me information while I'm having a press conference complaining about the lack of information!
Why are Republicans so hell bent on exposing embedded assets?
Actually their not, but if getting a few more killed would further their cause I guess they would see it as an acceptable loss, long as they could make an issue.
We all know that no matter what happened in Benghazi or what was said in response the Republican would try making a scandal.
.
"Why are Republicans so hell bent on exposing embedded assets?"
to them they are just collateral damage.
Republicans are not well at this time in our nation's history! We must keep their illness nailed to where it is for it will surely disorient all of us if left unhinged! -Kevo
Is there a natural point at which even the craziest of the GOTP will find their spinning top wobbling out of control and just fall the eff over?
Surely there must be at least a few rational conservatives out there who are not only getting uncomfortably embarrassed by this clown-show but prepared to speak out to stop the erosion of any last vestiges of credibility that may be left.
We may be getting close to that point on this one. The deeper problem is, even when the likes of McCain lose all credibility on one issue, the MSM still goes back to him on the next foreign policy issue.
No , because even dem Chairwoman of the United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Dianne Feinstein was on the sunday talk shows saying we need to know who changed the talking points Ambassador Rice ended up going with...
If she can not get a straight answer , or give one , then no one can ... one would think dems would be on the same page to clear up this fictional BS , guess again
Feinstein really needs to be primaried. If only we can find a well-financed Democrat in California ...
and it has been cleared up!
Just remember all the senile Auld Phartz like Bob Schieffer, who can't keep up with anyone swifter than McCain, which is why they had him on last Sunday for the TWENTIETH TIME THIS YEAR. Two senile old fools pretending to be relevant. Sad, very sad.
Jesus no kidding TCinLA , it is not entertaining or informative , interviewing Big Bird would be more fruitful and inspiring
so was is DINO difi demanding an investigation of the 'talking points'?
The GOP don't really want "answers" to their questions, they just want to be seen huffing & puffing - maybe they really will blow the (GOP) house down.....
The republican Benghazi-gate hysteria comes from the same soil that produced the conspiracies over flag lapel pins, accusations of apology tours, birtherism, and childish demands for President Obama to say the words 'American exceptionalism'. It is one long endless stream of republican nonsense.
And let's not forget "Freedom Fries."
Which kinda begs the question , why would you send a person to report to congress who does not know these SIMPLE details going in? The intel community must ok the talking points , then you get up before congress and say you do not know who OK'ED the talking points?
As outside observers , which we all are , it appears the intel community has 15 different people answering questions , can they get it down to 2 or 3 who are on the same page at least ? And tell eveyone else to shut up
After watching massive fail again and again by conservatives , I would hope it is time for obama to appoint some dem liberals to these posts , the communications coming from our intel community just scream gop incompetence , pandering , and political hackery
Even the media gets in on this, trying to gin up a story where there is none. Yesterday, I saw David Gregory flying with it, saying that if the administration didn't know who was responsible, as the CIA talking points said, then they shouldn't have sent Susan Rice or anyone else to talk about it. Imagine how that would have gone over! "The administration is covering something up!!"
It seems the closer you get to the beltway, the faster your IQ drops.
David Gregory is just disappointing. He either eschews adequate preparation or is not well-versed enough on the topic to confidently challenge BSers. He may as well move to FOX.
The Republican House cut Embassy Security twice in the past two years, once in excess of $100 million and another time, in excess of $200 million, as the only way the Republican Congress would be willing to vote for those budget compromises. Did Republican leadership expect the White House, State and Defense Departments to simply, ‘borrow’, any money as each Embassy’s security needs came along, as the Bush Administration thought departments would borrow as needed as their cuts went along?
While I am sure that Senator Mc Cain and Senator Graham would not have had any malicious intent to blame the administration for any compromised Embassy Security that developed from the Republican cuts, or debt that would add up because of the borrowing, I am not so sure about some of the Republican Party’s top political leaders.
However, why did Senator Mc Cain and Senator Graham vote for the cuts? How does Paul Ryan, of the House and Budget Committee, explain his government leadership behind the Embassy Security cuts that he helped orchestrate to Republican leaders, let alone the rest of us? How much funding for House and Senate Security did Republican leaders vote for in their budget agreements and how much does it equal out for each Senator and House Representative as compared to what they gave each of the U.S. Libyan Embassy personnel?
I think the Republican Party needs new political leaders. I think the Embassy cuts were an ugly game of political extremism, where Bush ran the wars on the cheap and current Republican political leadership wants to run foreign security on the cheaper and blame the other political party for any negative consequences from it.
I think top Republican leadership wants to ‘tax fund’ military equipment corporations that tend to contribute to Republican campaigns but tend to not want to fund government jobs in security until ‘after’ a crisis happens. (Cannot Republican leaders even respect why our government uses tax money to hire police officers before a crime is committed as opposed to waiting until after to see if we can save some tax money at others security expense? )
So we have gone from "worse than Watergate" to the definition of "is."
But, still impeachable! Show some brass, House Republicans, we needs our funnies.
This is absolutely ridiculous! A blatant transparent attempt at becoming relevant in foreign policy. What they don't realize, is that the American public has moved on and is no longer worried about it. The election proved that.
John McCain is 76 years old and not up for re-election until 2016. This is his last chance to appear relevant and engage in payback.
The Revenge of the Unhinged.. Part Seventeen, breaking wind!
This is so John McCain!
Well let's all go over to Fox News now and see if we can spot the next kernel of outrage that they will blow the hot air machine at.
You will be able to pick it out out as the next big thing by building a word cloud with the words 'scandal', 'bigger than Watergate' and of course 'kenyan' in it.
I take it McCain is still bitching and still has not checked in at the intel department to read any of his intel briefs? Now has he? The Senate Committee on Armed Services has gotten in tons of paperwork on Benghazi over the week. Has McCain even read one paper? The man has the security to see and read just about anything he wants to go and check out for himself. McCain is losing his mind and is turning into a troll. An angry, Mcnasty Cain troll.
his 17 year old unpaid intern lieutenants from Liberty University have read them and are briefing him as we speak
What remains a mystery to me is why the MSM can't ask the simple question - 'Senator, exactly what content was changed? Identify the specific words Senator.' and then 'Why is this significant?'
"Who are you to ask me why this is significant?", the old man yelled at a cloud.
GET OFF MY LAWN!
One might even say that the reason the Republican House cut the Embassy funds in the first place is because they were hoping a terrorist attack would occur! Then they could tell the country how badly the current Administration was at preventing terror attacks. Which is really the primary reason they were so angry it was not labeled a terror attack right away, it took away their talking point they had planned for!
Once you hit the righties with the facts in this article, they quickly move to the"They watched them die in real time!" argument .Does anyone have an answer to this.?I've searched and searched and come up with nada.
Same here. I have encountered the same comment often enough that I started searching for live video, but found none.
The comments given by Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Programs Charlene Lamb were that she received e-mails and phone calls (constant hanging up and then calling back) as to make it almost real time. There was no satellite imagery that was uplinked and they didn't have actual real time information. And the president was not the person involved. Lamb's point was that they tried to stay into contact with the consulate as opposed to leaving them high and dry. It's in the testimony given by Lamb at the public hearing. Tell them to actually listen to the testimony instead of jumping to a bunch of crap. It's available publicly on C-Span.
That is the passage in question. Here's a transcript available in PDF:
http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/2012-10-09-Lamb-Testimony-FINAL1.pdf
At no point in time did they have a satellite uplink and at NO point in time were the men in that building being left alone to die
Thanks for the info.....of course, it will probably be rejected the next time I put it out there
I would miss Rachel on TV but I truly believe she would do more good in office.
What the GOP has done was to limit our responses by forcing the U S government to release information which put both sources and CIA ops at risk.
In order to respond with either some cover or surprise was basically stripped from the government to allow the GOP to have talking points. The usual suspects of the radio talking heads and Fox News amplified this to effectively limit the ability to strike back at the extremist/terrorist.
Or, the State Department, with tactical control of the embassy, let Americans die, added some distracting spin, and then blamed the intelligence community, which is notoriously silent and unable to publicly defend itself...while 50 foreign (ie. non-Libyan Arab terrorists) dispersed...this is not so much a Republican/Democrat idealogy issue, this is the disingenuous State Department bureaucrats gaining operational control where they have no business. They aren't qualified to run a bake sale let alone protect American lives under fire. Then they lie. Where is Hillary? Noticeably invisible. Bureaucrats, especially State Dept. weenies and low=ranked White House personnel should not be in charge of the country during a crisis simply because an election is in progress. Leave qualified military personnel at the helm. Oh yes, let's fire some key competent military leadership for behaviours that are so common as to have been recently associated with the Clinton Presidency and numerous presidential candidates, and are absolutely widespread. Gee, I wonder which paranoid bureaucrats overreacted and leaked that stuff just in case of actual finger pointing? Checks and balances? I prefer my life to be in Petaeus' hands than Clinton/Rice.
And we can't get through one post without another conspiracy theorist giving us more bull@!$%#. Sigh.
The irony here though is I don't think people realize what military intervention would've meant in terms of this nation. Think second! Act first! And also don't investigate for misconduct or security leaks- that's not important!
Life would be so much simpler if the military ran everything!
It's things like Benghazi in politics that give me tired head. I'm soworn out by republicans turning everything into some sort of conspiracy about the president or the democratic party. It's like that's the first conclusion they jump to no matter what happens. Either President Obama screwed things up or his administration did...and oh look here comes another republican lynch mob!
Hey republicans! How about running our country instead of your mouths for a while! It's bad enough you stymied everything the federal government has tried to do in the last few years...meanwhile pointing the finger at our president and claiming he's done nothing...which isn't even true. But now you've been so doped up on your own crazy pills so long you don't know when to back down or shut up. If you're going to lead, then lead. Otherwise stay out of the way. America is sick of this nonsense!