quote:

---

Was not the question I asked. If the CIA was ordered to issue ""Talking Points"" I guess under those circumstances they'd issue talking points. Is that what happened? If so . . . Who gave the order? Who wrote the CIA TP's?

---

quote:

---

Oh I had no doubt most here would mindlessly dismiss it

---

quote:

---

dude im pretty sure any time any spokesperson goes and talks about something they are given talking points by people closest to the info

---

quote:

---

i actually work in comms and one of the things i do is prep execs and other speakers for different meetings and events by going around and collecting talking points from all the people who know the most and then i condense and organize them and give them to whoever is going to be doing the talking and then run through it all

---

quote:

---

i actually work in comms and one of the things i do is prep execs and other speakers for different meetings and events by going around and collecting talking points from all the people who know the most and then i condense and organize them and give them to whoever is going to be doing the talking and then run through it all

---

quote:

---

Well dude that would make you pretty fricking wrong.

---

quote:

---

Oh wait, CBS a media whore for the left conviniently "found" the talking points. Damn you really get joy out of giving knob jobs every damned day.

---

quote:

---

The Romney campaign may have misfired with its suggestion that statements by President Obama and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice about the Benghazi attack last month weren’t supported by intelligence, according to documents provided by a senior U.S. intelligence official.

“Talking points” prepared by the CIA on Sept. 15, the same day that Rice taped three television appearances, support her description of the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate as a reaction to Arab anger about an anti-Muslim video prepared in the United States. According to the CIA account, “The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.”

The CIA document went on: “This assessment may change as additional information is collected and analyzed and as currently available information continues to be evaluated.” This may sound like self-protective boilerplate, but it reflects the analysts’ genuine problem interpreting fragments of intercepted conversation, video surveillance and source reports.

The senior intelligence official said the analysts’ judgment was based in part on monitoring of some of the Benghazi attackers, which showed they had been watching the Cairo protests live on television and talking about them before they assaulted the consulate.

“We believe the timing of the attack was influenced by events in Cairo,” the senior official said, reaffirming the Cairo-Benghazi link. He said that judgment is repeated in a new report prepared this week for the House intelligence committee.

Here’s how the senior official described the jumble of events in Benghazi that day: “The attackers were disorganized; some seemed more interested in looting. Some who claimed to have participated joined the attack as it began or after it was under way. There is no evidence of rehearsals, they never got into the safe room .?.?. never took any hostages, didn’t bring explosives to blow the safe room door, and didn’t use a car bomb to blow the gates.”

The Benghazi flap is the sort of situation that intelligence officers dread: when politicians are demanding hard “yes” or “no” answers but evidence is fragmentary and conflicting. The political debate has focused on whether the attack was spontaneous or planned, but the official said there’s evidence of both, and that different attackers may have had different motives. There’s no dispute, however, that it was “an act of terror,” as Obama described it the next day.

“It was a flash mob with weapons,” is how the senior official described the attackers. The mob included members of the Ansar al-Sharia militia, about four members of al-Qaeda in the Maghreb, and members of the Egypt-based Muhammad Jamal network, along with other unarmed looters.

The official said the only major change he would make now in the CIA’s Sept. 15 talking points would be to drop the word “spontaneous” and substitute “opportunistic.” He explained that there apparently was “some pre-coordination but minimal planning.”

---

quote:

---

If so . . .
Who gave the order?
Who wrote the CIA TP's?

---

quote:

---

Because when stuff happens and we're collecting information and doing investigations and the American people are demanding answers we send people on television to say what they know to the best of their knowledge that simultaneously doesn't compromise the investigation and every spokesperson basically hedges constantly because information and understanding changes and usually people don't go all crazy because they've watched the news before.

---

quote:

---

Decatur, did you actually see any of the Sunday morning shows?

---

quote:

---

so do you think it was an intentional terrorist act or a spontaneous eruption from a protest?

---

quote:

---

yes and I provided you the transcripts

---

quote:

---

you had said that you'd feel much better if Rice had said that this was all a preliminary assessment that was subject to change as intel was further analyzed. I provided you with direct quotes of that.

---

quote:

---

Doesn't seem to have moved the needle with you

---

quote:

---

really so when jay carney goes and does a presser, how do you think he gets his information?

does he just make it up?

---

quote:

---

She was adamant on ABC that the attack was caused by the video.

---

quote:

---

The was NOT the tone of her commments as a whole. The ABC interview lasted almost 20 minutes. You gave two snippets from a 20 minute interview.

---

quote:

---

There's no question in my mind about any of that.

---

quote:

---

CBS, and the Washington Post, damn you are batting 1.000 with the sources. Where is the LA Times or NYT story on this?

---