Last November, investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson issued a series of tweets in an attempt to untangle the web of Benghazi talking points woven by the CIA, the State Department and the White House. Months later, she’s at it again. Are we any closer to knowing the truth, or is it time to settle for Jay Carney’s “blame Romney” spin?
Today, State Dept's Philippe Reines said Clinton Depty Chief of Staff Jake Sullivan was not in the #Benghazi talking points meeting Sept. 15
— Sharyl Attkisson (@SharylAttkisson) May 11, 2013
Reines told CBS News: "The White House will tell you he (Sullivan) didn't attend…Not sure where that is coming from but it's bogus…" BUT
— Sharyl Attkisson (@SharylAttkisson) May 11, 2013
But?
…the White House then contradicted the State Dept and said Sullivan WAS in attendance…
— Sharyl Attkisson (@SharylAttkisson) May 11, 2013
The White House told CBS News: "The CIA circulated revised talking points…after the Deputies Committee meeting, which Jake attended."
— Sharyl Attkisson (@SharylAttkisson) May 11, 2013
Reines later explained to CBS News that he "hadn't checked" with Sullivan before mistakely saying that Sullivan didn't attend.
— Sharyl Attkisson (@SharylAttkisson) May 11, 2013
Then-CIA chief Petraeus seemed irked at the talking point changes, which removed references to CIA having provided advance warnings…
— Sharyl Attkisson (@SharylAttkisson) May 11, 2013
…of a possible attack on the US Embassy in Cairo, as well as the risks in Benghazi…
— Sharyl Attkisson (@SharylAttkisson) May 11, 2013
Removed from the Talking Points: "On 10 Sept. the [CIA] notified the Embassy in Cairo of social media reports calling for a demonstration..
— Sharyl Attkisson (@SharylAttkisson) May 11, 2013
…and encouraging jihadists to break into the Embassy." (Removed)
— Sharyl Attkisson (@SharylAttkisson) May 11, 2013
Removed from Talking Points: "There are indications that Islamic extremists participated in the violent demonstrations."
— Sharyl Attkisson (@SharylAttkisson) May 11, 2013
A Sr. US intel official tells CBS: “The changes don’t reflect a turf battle. They were attempts to find the appropriate level of detail..
— Sharyl Attkisson (@SharylAttkisson) May 11, 2013
..for unclassified, preliminary talking points that could be used by members of Congress to address a fluid situation. ”
— Sharyl Attkisson (@SharylAttkisson) May 11, 2013
Removed from Talking Points: "The wide availability of weapons & experienced fighters in Libya almost certainly contribute(d) to…
— Sharyl Attkisson (@SharylAttkisson) May 11, 2013
…the lethality of the attacks."
— Sharyl Attkisson (@SharylAttkisson) May 11, 2013
Removed from the Talking Points:"The [CIA] has produced numerous pieces on threat of extremists linked to al Qa'ida in Benghazi/east.Libya."
— Sharyl Attkisson (@SharylAttkisson) May 11, 2013
Removed from Talking Points: "Since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi…
— Sharyl Attkisson (@SharylAttkisson) May 11, 2013
…by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador's convoy."
— Sharyl Attkisson (@SharylAttkisson) May 11, 2013
Removed: "We cannot rule out the individuals ha(ve)previously surveilled US facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks."
— Sharyl Attkisson (@SharylAttkisson) May 11, 2013
Removed "Islamic" from the reference to "Islamic extremists."
— Sharyl Attkisson (@SharylAttkisson) May 11, 2013
A Sr. US Intel official tells CBS: “Overall, the changes were made to address intelligence and legal issues."
— Sharyl Attkisson (@SharylAttkisson) May 11, 2013
US Intel Official: "First, the information about individuals linked to al-Qaeda was derived from classified sources…"
— Sharyl Attkisson (@SharylAttkisson) May 11, 2013
US Intel Official: Second,when early links are tenuous, it makes sense to be cautious before pointing fingers to avoid setting off a chain..
— Sharyl Attkisson (@SharylAttkisson) May 11, 2013
…of circular and self-reinforcing assumptions and reporting. Finally, it is important to take care not to prejudice a criminal…
— Sharyl Attkisson (@SharylAttkisson) May 11, 2013
…investigation in its early stages."
— Sharyl Attkisson (@SharylAttkisson) May 11, 2013
Are we still in the “early stages” of the investigation?
When CIA Chief Petraeus received the changed Talking Points he "didn't like them" according to Congressional sources who viewed his emails..
— Sharyl Attkisson (@SharylAttkisson) May 11, 2013
Petraeus answers that he would "just assume they not use them… This is not what [Rep.] Ruppersberger asked for…"
— Sharyl Attkisson (@SharylAttkisson) May 11, 2013
Petraeus email: "We couldn't even mention the Cairo warning. But "he added… "it's their call," referring to White House Advisors
— Sharyl Attkisson (@SharylAttkisson) May 11, 2013
Ruppersberger is the lead Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee who had asked for talking points.
— Sharyl Attkisson (@SharylAttkisson) May 11, 2013
Here’s a good question: if it was so important not to jump to conclusions, how did the man behind that YouTube video end up in prison so quickly?
@SharylAttkisson Then why focus solely on the movie maker? Isn't the lie about the video influencing the investigation? (1/2)
— Longbranch Saloon (@Delmonicos_OK) May 11, 2013
@Delmonicos_OK I had the same thought: if you don't want to influence investigation or talk about connections that are tenuous…
— Sharyl Attkisson (@SharylAttkisson) May 11, 2013
@Delmonicos_OK …why blame the YouTube video, which was more tenuous than the terror/ al-Qaeda connection?
— Sharyl Attkisson (@SharylAttkisson) May 11, 2013
