Obama administration e-mails raise new questions on Benghazi
May 10th, 2013
03:14 PM ET
2 years ago

Obama administration e-mails raise new questions on Benghazi

Washington (CNN) - An e-mail discussion about talking points the Obama administration used to describe the deadly attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya, show the White House and State Department were more involved than they first said in the decision to remove an initial CIA assessment that a group with ties to al Qaeda was involved, according to CNN sources with knowledge of the e-mails.

The talking points have become a political flashpoint in a long-running battle between the administration and Republicans, who say that officials knew the attack last September 11 was a planned terror operation while they were telling the public it was an act of violence that grew out of a demonstration over a video produced in the United States that insulted Islam.

FULL STORY

Filed under: Libya • State Department
soundoff (43 Responses)
  1. Dutch/Bad Newz, VA -aka- Take Back The House -aka- No Redemption Votes

    And yet you're still beating a dead horse. We know the intelligence committee changed the talking points. Can you say witch hunt?

    May 10, 2013 03:27 pm at 3:27 pm |
  2. Liberal Sense (Or lack thereof)

    COVERUP!!!!!!!!!!!!

    This makes Watergate seem like a picnic.

    May 10, 2013 03:29 pm at 3:29 pm |
  3. obama victim

    what the white house lie?? is there gambling in Casa Blanca too?? what a piece of garbage Bary is

    May 10, 2013 03:29 pm at 3:29 pm |
  4. Zerubbabel

    Yeah, like all admins do not revise talking points to ongoing investigations so as to keep the perps in the dark. Jvst look at the Boston bombings, how much info was immediately released. The police do it all the time. Nothing new here, all involved has seen and heard this info months ago. This farce is nothing more than a GOP attempt to damage Clinton. The media is using this for revenue purposes, stop sensationalizing this witch hunt for financial gain.

    May 10, 2013 03:32 pm at 3:32 pm |
  5. BigTBone

    The billion dollar question: What did Obama have to gain by all this?

    He had already staked his reputation on the OBL raid and delivered.

    Does anyone know what the CIA was really doing there?

    Has anyone actually claimed responsibility for the attack. FB and Tweets don't count...

    Repugs are dirtbags in suits. Zero credibility, zero ideas, zero brains.

    May 10, 2013 03:42 pm at 3:42 pm |
  6. Wake up People!

    Good Lord. When will this BS end? I remember a time when officials like police, FBI, POTUS didn't have to tell us one thing. The GOP thinks it's a good thing to let the criminals know EVERYTHING???

    These 8 years are going to go down in history for the most obstruction in history. Simply ridiculous.

    May 10, 2013 03:43 pm at 3:43 pm |
  7. otlset

    Four people died, then to cover themselves Obama and Clinton lied.

    May 10, 2013 03:46 pm at 3:46 pm |
  8. Liberal Sense (Or lack thereof)

    All this happening within a month of the election.

    What did he have to gain? Clearly obvious. Who made it political? Mr. Transparent that's who.

    May 10, 2013 03:49 pm at 3:49 pm |
  9. Dutch/Bad Newz, VA -aka- Take Back The House -aka- No Redemption Votes

    Yes CNN! You're becoming more and more like Faux Noise everyday.

    May 10, 2013 03:52 pm at 3:52 pm |
  10. Rudy NYC

    Again, I say, "So what." If the administration doesn't want the perpetrators to know just how much we know about what happpened, then they can come out and say publicly anything they want about it. Reason: it's classified.

    May 10, 2013 03:58 pm at 3:58 pm |
  11. Sniffit

    "The White House made stylistic edits to the talking points to emphasize that the investigation was ongoing as to who was responsible, to simplify certain phrasing, and to clarify that the Benghazi mission was not a consulate," the official said.

    The e-mail exchange and alterations to the talking points were first reported by ABC and The Weekly Standard and confirmed by CNN appear to contradict that assertion.

    A source familiar with the exchange said then-State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland raised concerns "

    Note to CNN: something someone from the State Dept said or did does not "contradict" a statement about what the WH says the WH says or did. Here we have a clear statement that the WH says "we did X." Then you attempt to "
    contradict" it by saying "someone at the State Dept. did Y." That's a fail unless you can show the latter person specifically did it at the WH's direction, which you can't show because it's not true and none of the emails suggest that is the case (otherwise you'd be citing those too).

    May 10, 2013 03:59 pm at 3:59 pm |
  12. Name willard

    I am not belived that presdient obama get new new email but I need know where is old email from benghina

    May 10, 2013 04:01 pm at 4:01 pm |
  13. Zerubbabel

    Where is the smoking gun. When taken in context, this is normal administrative communication to resolve all parties concerns to arrive at acceptable talking points to inform the public. If the emails were that explosive, Issa and company would have been yelling off of the rooftop for these emails.

    May 10, 2013 04:03 pm at 4:03 pm |
  14. Name willard

    God will not trust to predsient obama get new email raise but where before email is old at white house

    May 10, 2013 04:05 pm at 4:05 pm |
  15. Wes

    'Hope and change' the story before the election.

    May 10, 2013 04:10 pm at 4:10 pm |
  16. Zerubbabel

    Who made it political, well that would be Romney. Remember, after the early morning press conference he was accused of politiciying the tragedy. He never brought up the subject again, but his fellow repubs will never let it die, ho hum.

    May 10, 2013 04:10 pm at 4:10 pm |
  17. jkane sfl the gop national disgrace party will be swept out like the trash they are in2014 ?

    All the brain dead gop magots on this thread ,we don't care and we know your just tryin to drag Clinton through the mud. But gop clowns your reputation is already mud or lower , good luck in 2014 and 2016 when you lose the house and senate and forget the white house this century,morons!!!!

    May 10, 2013 04:11 pm at 4:11 pm |
  18. Doug in NYC

    To an extent, why would any adminstration just go out and say "we know this for a fact", there are or were obviously assests on the ground that need to be protected. Do we want those attacking to know that? Then we loose those assests? It's called disinformation! Do you really beleive Bush wasn't concerned about OBL's wearabouts?

    And enough about who ordered the troops that were 400 miles away to stand down! Even John Bolton admitted, on Faux News even, that it wasn't clear if the embassy was secure and to send those troops would have left that location without protection!

    Republicans are going to try and impeach another Clinton, this time before she makes it to the White House!

    May 10, 2013 04:12 pm at 4:12 pm |
  19. Sniffit

    "Obama administration e-mails raise new questions on Benghazi"

    Of course, CNN makes that claim but then fails to articulate what any of those questions might be. Why? Because the game here is to perpetuate the controversy, not to get answers. Failing to even pinpoint the questions prevents anyone from saying "well, the answer is over here and this is what proves it." The GOP/Teatrolls are feeding the MSM a red meat controversy to in turn feed to the viewing/clicking audience for advertising revenue. Why would the MSM bite the hand that's feeding them?

    May 10, 2013 04:13 pm at 4:13 pm |
  20. Guy

    Just like Nixon when he tried to cover up Watergate. He got away with it until after the election.
    This scandal may take down both Obama and Hillary Clinton.

    May 10, 2013 04:13 pm at 4:13 pm |
  21. S.B. Stein E.B. NJ

    My question for those that are bashing Obama and Clinton is: what would you have done differently? How much could have been done with what you had access to? What was known then with certianty? There is a lot there that could have gone wrong and cost more lives. Stephens shouldn't have been there without a larger security detachment.

    May 10, 2013 04:15 pm at 4:15 pm |
  22. Wake up People!

    Oh lord Willard is back making no sense as usual. Btw, it's Ben-gha-zi.

    May 10, 2013 04:15 pm at 4:15 pm |
  23. Sniffit

    BTW, is CNN having a gran old party avoiding pointing out that the email Boehner said contained the phrase "Islamic terrorists" didn't actually contain that phrase?

    May 10, 2013 04:15 pm at 4:15 pm |
  24. Liberal Sense (Or lack thereof)

    Democrats made it political when they covered it up from day one.

    May 10, 2013 04:15 pm at 4:15 pm |
  25. Sniffit

    " I remember a time when officials like police, FBI, POTUS didn't have to tell us one thing."

    That shouldn't be hard...it was called the Bush administration and only ended about 5 years ago.

    May 10, 2013 04:16 pm at 4:16 pm |
1 2