to talk to you. the talking points did include in the early stage when the cia handed them for edits, a fairly detailed description with the mention of involvement of al qaeda and warnings of a possible terror attack in benghazi. all of these were taken out. it is still unclear at this point by whom, whether the state department or the white house or somewhere else. how can you defend the administration for such substantial edits to those talking points? well, the key thing on the talking points is most fundamental error in them stayed in throughout the editing process and that s the error saying it began as a protest and solely a and they got that wrong. there s never been any indication that the state department or white house was responsible for that error.
tamp this down to help obama win the election. you think this is smart. no question they took out in the editing process, obviously no question. nobody disgraes that they took out references to al qaeda, et cetera. the question is why did they do it? the thing that i just read from the general counsel was, that s because the d.o.j., the department of justice, the fbi who will handle the investigation don t want us saying anything publicly or even internally. let s take this, they didn t want to mention al qaeda or the previous attacks. why did they continue to say through the mouth of susan rice on meet the press , that it was basically a demonstration that evolved into a terrorist attack. why are they still trying to play down it was terrorism? i talked to someone involved in the drafting of the talking points earlier today. the explanation is that we still didn t clearly know there was conflicting information why did obama say it was terrorism. the attacks happened aft
adam schiff, thank you very much, congressman, always great to talk to you. the talking points did include in the early stage when the cia handed them for edits, a fairly detailed description with the mention of involvement of al qaeda and warnings of a possible terror attack in benghazi. all of these were taken out. it is still unclear at this point by whom, whether the state department or the white house or somewhere else. how can you defend the administration for such substantial edits to those talking points? well, the key thing on the talking points is most fundamental error in them stayed in throughout the editing process and that s the error saying it began as a protest and solely a and they got that wrong. there s never been any indication that the state department or white house was responsible for that error. there were other changes made basically that watered down the talking points. i think there were a number of motivations there, some to
their lives. not a single person died. tell me about what you wrote on your body. uncommon valor with a common virtue. we were decitrying to decidet to write. people wanted to say hopeful stuff, which is good. i was thinking back to the night of hurricane sandy, the night of the fire, on a couple of situations we should have all died three or four times, and we kept going, and and i wanted to say something about bravery. and i was thinking back to the history books and i remember admiral nimitz used that quote to describe the war in the pacific and the war who fought there. so i thought it was appropriate. rob, you are conveying a message and story as you said, but also producing pieces of art. are you helping people like sebastian with that message? is there an editing process? or does he get to put on his body whatever he chooses? the project, i keep pretty universal. i asked them to share one message, and what is really
in terms of the public format they were concerned about getting situation where you are in an investigation and you create potential for a false confirmation. so if you say it s al qaeda and you are not 100% sure within 72 hours or so, at least by their logic they are saying they didn t want to put that out in the public so people wouldn t come back and say i heard it was al qaeda that s points number one. because clearp is the director of national intelligence. he s technically in charge of that process it got garbled. but this was done in the editing process. i heard clearp and his staff will be sharing all the e-mail traffic on the classified traffic with these lawmakers so they can explain this is how it happened. it was not what they are saying is it wasn t an example of white house politization.