Ex-State Department Spokeswoman Admit/Denies Editing Benghazi Talking Points

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. He is completing a book on the international challenges America faces in the 21st century.


VictoriaNuland

State Department Spokeswoman Victoria Nuland, who helped shape the Benghazi talking points is being kicked upstairs as a reward for her loyal service to Hillary 2016. But she would like the senate to know that she did not edit the talking points, but did “edit” the talking points.

To reconcile these statements, you need the mind of a Clinton.

Victoria Nuland on Thursday denied having any role in crafting the talking points used to discuss the Benghazi terrorist attack.

Nuland, nominated to be assistant secretary of State for European and Eurasian affairs, had come under fire after raising concerns with an early draft of the talking points.

“I never edited these talking points,” she told Congress. “I never made changes.”

No, she just pointed out specifically which changes she wanted made to protect the election prospects of her bosses.

Nuland testified Thursday that she raised the concerns based on instructions to be consistent with what the administration had been saying in public, to protect the integrity of the investigation and to make sure that different agencies — including the State Department, the CIA and the Defense Department — weren’t set back.

“My concern was that it was not in that spirit,” she said of references to past CIA warnings of Islamist threats in eastern Libya.

Nuland said she merely flagged the controversial points for review by her superiors. She said she was not instructed to raise the concerns but did so on her own.

She also testified that she did not talk to Clinton about the talking points and had no involvement with Rice before she delivered them on national television. Rice had to abandon her shot at being secretary of State amid Republican opposition to her TV appearances, but is now the president’s national security adviser.

To sum up… Victoria Nuland demanded changes to various aspects of the talking points, which ultimately ended reducing them to misleading gibberish, but she claims that

A. She did this entirely on her own initiative

B. Her demand for edits did not constitute editing

Bill Clinton would probably agree, but traditionally flagging sections of a written work and demanding changes, does count as editing.

But let’s hear it again from Nuland...

“I never edited these talking points, I never made changes,” Nuland said. She said she was concerned that the Central Intelligence Agency draft — which said that agency had repeatedly warned the State Department of terrorist threats in Benghazi — had offered a “mistaken and flawed perception.”

“My concern was they were inappropriately crafted as points for the media and they would be misleading,” Nuland said. “What mattered most was a full and fair investigation.”

So Nuland didn’t edit the talking points because she didn’t physically make the changes to them, but just demanded that other people do it.

That reminds me of the time that Bill Clinton held a press conference, shook a finger in our faces and proclaimed, “I did not edit that document.”

  • Toni_Pereira

    For the liberal mindset what one person says on one minute has no necessary connection with what he says 60 seconds latter. It’s a feature common to the Clintons, Tony Blair and of course, O’bama.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    Word games again. Cute.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    This is what we get for not going all the way in ousting Bill Clinton.

  • finebammer

    depends on what the meaning of “edit” is………

    (hand me that cigar, honey)