______________________________________

From: Michael Hastings

Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2012 12:04 PM¿

To: Reines, Philippe I ¿Cc: Nuland, Victoria J

Subject: Re: Request for comment

Philippe:

Thanks for getting back to me. No, you read my email correctly--I found your statement to CNN offensive.

From my perspective, the scandal here is that the State Department had such inadequate security procedures in place that four Americans were killed. And then the Ambassador's diary--and who knows what else--was left behind for anyone to pick up. Thankfully, it was CNN--and not Al Qaeda or some other militia--that found it and was able to return it to the family. That CNN used portions of the material in the diary they found at the scene--material that appears to contradict the official version of events that State/WH has been putting out--is completely in line with practices of good journalism.

I don't know how involved Arwa Damon has been in this. But for what it's worth, Arwa is one of the best war correspondents working today. She's consistently risked her life to get these stories, and to find out what actually happens in these conflict zones.I do agree that the media has lots of responsibilities, and CNN fulfilled its responsibility by returning the diary while still managing to inform the American public of newsworthy information. So it's unfortunate that you are trying to make a scapegoat out of CNN. That State was forced to flee Benghazi--again, because of such inadequate security, leaving behind all sorts of sensitive information--tells us more about DoS than CNN.

The misinformation here seems largely to be coming from State and the administration. The defense that the administration has offered that there was no intelligence warning of an attack is weak. If there was no intel, then clearly the CIA and other intel agents stationed in Benghazi weren't doing their jobs well. If there was intel, then we have some kind of cover-up--whether out of incompetence or ass covering before the election or just the trauma of losing four good men, it's hard for me to say at this point.¿

All the best,

¿Michael

______________________________________

On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Reines, Philippe I wrote:

¿Why do you bother to ask questions you've already decided you know the answers to?

______________________________________

From: Michael Hastings

Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2012 12:50 PM¿

To: Reines, Philippe I ¿Cc: Nuland, Victoria J

¿Subject: Re: Request for comment ¿¿

Why don't you give answers that aren't bullshit for a change?

______________________________________

On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Reines, Philippe I wrote:¿

I now understand why the official investigation by the Department of the Defense as reported by The Army Times The Washington Post concluded beyond a doubt that you're an unmitigated asshole.

How's that for a non-bullshit response?

Now that we've gotten that out of our systems, have a good day.

And by good day, I mean Fuck Off

______________________________________

From: Michael Hastings

Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2012 01:40 PM¿

To: Reines, Philippe I ¿Cc: Nuland, Victoria J

¿Subject: Re: Request for comment

Hah--I now understand what women say about you, too! Any new complaints against you lately?

______________________________________

On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Reines, Philippe I wrote:

¿Talk about bullshit - answer me this: Do you only traffic in lies, or are you on the ground floor of creating them?

And since Fuck Off wasn't clear enough, I'm done with you. Inside of 5 minutes when I can log into my desktop, you'll be designated as Junk Mail.

Have a good life Michael.

______________________________________

From: Michael Hastings ¿

Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 1:50 PM¿

Subject: Re: Request for comment

¿To: "Reines, Philippe I" ¿Cc: "Nuland, Victoria J"¿

I'll take that as a non-denial denial.

All the best,

Michael