Liberal Forum

Good deal.Okay, warm and fuzzy time is over, back to our topic of contention...Today a white house advisor said that the white house was not the entity that took the "Benghazi was a terroist attack" language out of the brief that originated in the CIA.Assuming the white house is not lying (hehe) that means that somewhere between the CIA and the white house somebody took that language out of the brief. This shouldn't be quite so hard to identify, yet this information is not forthcoming.Can you make the case, however lame, Misty, as to how this can not be constured as stonewalling?(Also, I could be ranting about this in The Mighty Horse Thread, but as part of my gracious welcome to the new (again) senior moderater, I chooose to do this here. The party hat image was a bonus. There ya go.)They didn't take the 'Benghazi was a terroist attack' language out of the brief.From what I read they just changed 'Al Qaeda' to 'extremists'.And here is why:The first draft of the CIA unclassified talking points stated there were indications the attack was linked to al Qaeda, but during the interagency process when the talking points were reviewed, al Qaeda was changed to extremists. The official said the change was not a political decision. "The points were not, as has been insinuated by some, edited to minimize the role of extremists, diminish terrorist affiliations, or play down that this was an attack. There were legitimate intelligence and legal issues to consider, as is almost always the case when explaining classified assessments publicly." the official explained. "First, the information about individuals linked to al-Qaeda was derived from classified sources. Second, when links were so tenuousas they still areit makes sense to be cautious before pointing fingers so you dont 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.The official said the controversy over the word "terrorist" caught the intelligence community by "surprise." Most people understand that saying extremists were involved in a direct assault on the mission isnt shying away from the idea of terrorist involvement," the official said. "People assumed that it was apparent in this context that extremists who attack US facilities and kill Americans are, by definition, terrorists. Because of the various elements involved in the attack, the term extremist was meant to capture the range of participants." The talking points, the senior U.S. official explained, "were a reflection of the understanding at the time that could be provided at an unclassified level. They were preliminary and were never meant to be the final word on the issue." On who authorized the final version of the talking points, a US intelligence official said, "We're reviewing the coordination trail."CNNSo the term 'Al Qaeda' was taken out during what they call the 'interagency process'. These talking points apparently were reviewed by several of our intelligence agencies, not just the CIA.I'm still puzzled by this whole 'did they call it a terrorist attack or not' controversy.Instead of arguing over who called it what and when, shouldn't we be trying to find out what went wrong, and how we can prevent this from happening again? I think our time would be much better spent on that, then on this silly argument over semantics.(Also, I could be ranting about this in The Mighty Horse Thread, but as part of my gracious welcome to the new (again) senior moderater, I chooose to do this here. The paty hat image was a bonus. There ya go.)(I do appreciate that. Unfortunately I may not be able to play much this weekend. I have a lot to do to get ready for Thanksgiving, so forgive me if I am lax in my responses.)