New Yorker: Talking Point Edits 'Seriously Undermines White House Credibility'

New Yorker: Talking Point Edits 'Seriously Undermines White House Credibility'

The New Yorker’s Alex Koppelman had been a skeptic when it came to Republican claims that there was a there there with respect to the White House’s involvement in spinning a terror attack into a spontaneous protest run amok on that fateful September day in Libya. Jonathan Karl’s bombshell ABC News report Friday about the twelve Administration edits to the CIA talking points has changed all of that:

But the mere existence of the edits–whatever the motivation for them–seriously undermines the White House’s credibility on this issue. This past November (after Election Day), White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters that “The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two institutions were changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility’ because ‘consulate’ was inaccurate.”

Remarkably, Carney is sticking with that line even now. In his regular press briefing on Friday afternoon (a briefing that was delayed several times, presumably in part so the White House could get its spin in order, but also so that it could hold a secretive pre-briefing briefing with select members of the White House press corps), he said:

The only edit made by the White House or the State Department to those talking points generated by the C.I.A. was a change from referring to the facility that was attacked in Benghazi from “consulate,” because it was not a consulate, to “diplomatic post”… it was a matter of non-substantive factual correction. But there was a process leading up to that that involved inputs from a lot of agencies, as is always the case in a situation like this and is always appropriate.

This is an incredible thing for Carney to be saying. He’s playing semantic games.

Read the whole thing.



Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.