Total Posts:20|Showing Posts:1-20
Jump to topic:

Benghazi: Actually a Republican Scandal

royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 7:05:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The White House emails explicitly confirm that Republican politicians have been doctoring evidence and lying about quotes in order to make this into a scandal. It seems that this is actually a scandal for Republicans, and not for Democrats.

Generally, once partisan, tendentious sources leak information that turns out to be wrong, nothing"s ever done about it. That"s for many reasons, some good or somewhat understandable, mostly bad. But on CBS Evening News tonight, Major Garrett did something I don"t feel like I"ve seen in a really long time or maybe ever on a network news cast. He basically said straight out: Republicans told us these were the quotes, that wasn"t true. Quick transcript after the jump "

SCOTT PELLEY: Also at his news conference today the president called for tighter security for U.S. diplomatic facilities to prevent an attack like the one in Benghazi, Libya, last year that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.

Of course, Benghazi has become a political controversy. Republicans claim that the Administration watered down the facts in talking points that were given to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice for television appearances while Mr. Obama was running for reelection. Republicans on Capitol Hill claim that they had found proof of this in White House e-mails that they leaked to reporters last week. Well, it turns out some of the quotes in those e-mails were wrong. Major Garrett is at the White House for us tonight. Major?

MAJOR GARRETT: Scott, Republicans have claimed that the State Department under Hillary Clinton was trying to protect itself from criticism. The White House released the real e-mails late yesterday and here"s what we found when we compared them to the quotes that had been provided by Republicans. One e-mail was written by Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes.

On Friday, Republicans leaked what they said was a quote from Rhodes. "We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don"t want to undermine the FBI investigation." But it turns out, in the actual e-mail Rhodes did not mention the State Department.

It read "We need to resolve this in a way that respects all the relevant equities, particularly the investigation." Republicans also provided what they said was a quote from an e-mail written by State Department Spokesman Victoria Nuland. The Republican version notes Nuland discussing: "The penultimate point is a paragraph talking about all the previous warnings provided by the Agency (CIA) about al-Qaeda"s presence and activities of al-Qaeda."

The actual e-mail from Nuland says: the ""penultimate point could be abused by Members to beat the State Department for not paying attention to Agency warnings"" The C.I.A. agreed with the concerns raised by the State Department and revised the talking points to make them less specific than the C.I.A."s original version, eliminating references to al-Qaeda and affiliates and earlier security warnings. There is no evidence, Scott, the White House orchestrated these changes.

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com...
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 9:46:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Now, if only someone would find out who doctored these emails and linked it to a name, we would have a very interesting turn of events...
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 9:49:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I can see why you aren't a Christian, Royalpaladin. You already believe in a God you call Barack Obama and the Church of the Democratic Party.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 9:56:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/22/2013 9:49:53 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
I can see why you aren't a Christian, Royalpaladin. You already believe in a God you call Barack Obama and the Church of the Democratic Party.

So, can you explain why the leaked emails don't match the ones released by the White House?

It means someone lied. It could be confirmed which one is the real one with a quick check of the Presidential Inbox. The White House knows this, and wouldn't do this if they weren't releasing the real ones, since it would be easily found out if they were giving the wrong ones.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 10:12:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/22/2013 9:56:59 PM, drhead wrote:
At 5/22/2013 9:49:53 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
I can see why you aren't a Christian, Royalpaladin. You already believe in a God you call Barack Obama and the Church of the Democratic Party.

So, can you explain why the leaked emails don't match the ones released by the White House?

It means someone lied. It could be confirmed which one is the real one with a quick check of the Presidential Inbox. The White House knows this, and wouldn't do this if they weren't releasing the real ones, since it would be easily found out if they were giving the wrong ones.

I can explain why this doesn't matter. Unlike you, I am not trapped in this D vs R mentality. I understand that both parties are full of statists. Statism, not Democrats or Republicans, is the real problem.

Both parties lie to justify this statism all the time. Barack Obama has done an unusual amount of harm for a president in his statist agenda of fascist health care, fascist banking regulation, fascist industrial policy, etc.

All this BS is merely a distraction from the real problem.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 10:43:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/22/2013 10:12:40 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 5/22/2013 9:56:59 PM, drhead wrote:
At 5/22/2013 9:49:53 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
I can see why you aren't a Christian, Royalpaladin. You already believe in a God you call Barack Obama and the Church of the Democratic Party.

So, can you explain why the leaked emails don't match the ones released by the White House?

It means someone lied. It could be confirmed which one is the real one with a quick check of the Presidential Inbox. The White House knows this, and wouldn't do this if they weren't releasing the real ones, since it would be easily found out if they were giving the wrong ones.

I can explain why this doesn't matter. Unlike you, I am not trapped in this D vs R mentality. I understand that both parties are full of statists. Statism, not Democrats or Republicans, is the real problem.

Both parties lie to justify this statism all the time. Barack Obama has done an unusual amount of harm for a president in his statist agenda of fascist health care, fascist banking regulation, fascist industrial policy, etc.

All this BS is merely a distraction from the real problem.

Yes. This video reveals the truth. It hold true on DDO more than all.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 10:45:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/22/2013 10:12:40 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 5/22/2013 9:56:59 PM, drhead wrote:
At 5/22/2013 9:49:53 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
I can see why you aren't a Christian, Royalpaladin. You already believe in a God you call Barack Obama and the Church of the Democratic Party.

So, can you explain why the leaked emails don't match the ones released by the White House?

It means someone lied. It could be confirmed which one is the real one with a quick check of the Presidential Inbox. The White House knows this, and wouldn't do this if they weren't releasing the real ones, since it would be easily found out if they were giving the wrong ones.

I can explain why this doesn't matter. Unlike you, I am not trapped in this D vs R mentality. I understand that both parties are full of statists. Statism, not Democrats or Republicans, is the real problem.

Both parties lie to justify this statism all the time. Barack Obama has done an unusual amount of harm for a president in his statist agenda of fascist health care, fascist banking regulation, fascist industrial policy, etc.

All this BS is merely a distraction from the real problem.

Ah, yes, the fascism. Here's my response:

Fascist fascist fascist fascist fascist fascist fascist fascist fascist.

Am I winning now?
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2013 12:20:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/22/2013 10:45:33 PM, drhead wrote:
At 5/22/2013 10:12:40 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 5/22/2013 9:56:59 PM, drhead wrote:
At 5/22/2013 9:49:53 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
I can see why you aren't a Christian, Royalpaladin. You already believe in a God you call Barack Obama and the Church of the Democratic Party.

So, can you explain why the leaked emails don't match the ones released by the White House?

It means someone lied. It could be confirmed which one is the real one with a quick check of the Presidential Inbox. The White House knows this, and wouldn't do this if they weren't releasing the real ones, since it would be easily found out if they were giving the wrong ones.

I can explain why this doesn't matter. Unlike you, I am not trapped in this D vs R mentality. I understand that both parties are full of statists. Statism, not Democrats or Republicans, is the real problem.

Both parties lie to justify this statism all the time. Barack Obama has done an unusual amount of harm for a president in his statist agenda of fascist health care, fascist banking regulation, fascist industrial policy, etc.

All this BS is merely a distraction from the real problem.

Ah, yes, the fascism. Here's my response:

Fascist fascist fascist fascist fascist fascist fascist fascist fascist.

Am I winning now?

Ya. Don't pretend that all I did was say fascism. I had a much larger point and the use of the word fascism was not at all central to my point.

Nice attempt to avoid taking on my point though.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2013 12:23:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I really think both sides should be investigated by some third party. That way whatever result is quasi-unbiased. Honestly, I dont care about this issue. But whoever is at fault should pay.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2013 6:48:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The partisanship of the media and all 'investigations' (this one and the one about Benghazi) should make anyone who isn't a republican or democrat laugh. I commonly laugh at all of this, seeing as how I'm on the outside looking in. I really believe that both democrats and republicans impose their sense of morality, just in different ways. Neither side is as 'moderate' or 'objective' as they claim to be.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2013 4:58:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/22/2013 9:49:53 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
I can see why you aren't a Christian, Royalpaladin. You already believe in a God you call Barack Obama and the Church of the Democratic Party.

I think your argument would be better understood on Youtube.
1Percenter
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2013 5:08:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
This is rubbish. Republicans did not doctor any e-mails. The sources leaked the knowledge of the e-mails as summaries and notes. The fact that there were slightly different transcriptions of the e-mails shows that there were multiple note-takers reporting to journalists as well.

It would be stupid for Republicans to fabricate e-mails that the White House at any moment could have made public. Obviously Republicans put their own spin on the implications of the e-mails, just like they did with the House report. So if the White House knew Republicans had seen their e-mails, why didn't they just release them earlier?

The accusers have the burden of proof. The Republicans met that burden by transcribing leaked e-mails. Turns out they were right.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2013 7:38:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/23/2013 5:08:49 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
This is rubbish. Republicans did not doctor any e-mails. The sources leaked the knowledge of the e-mails as summaries and notes. The fact that there were slightly different transcriptions of the e-mails shows that there were multiple note-takers reporting to journalists as well.

It would be stupid for Republicans to fabricate e-mails that the White House at any moment could have made public. Obviously Republicans put their own spin on the implications of the e-mails, just like they did with the House report. So if the White House knew Republicans had seen their e-mails, why didn't they just release them earlier?

The accusers have the burden of proof. The Republicans met that burden by transcribing leaked e-mails. Turns out they were right.

And how does this explain the State Department making its way into that email?
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
1Percenter
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2013 5:08:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/24/2013 7:38:30 AM, drhead wrote:
At 5/23/2013 5:08:49 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
This is rubbish. Republicans did not doctor any e-mails. The sources leaked the knowledge of the e-mails as summaries and notes. The fact that there were slightly different transcriptions of the e-mails shows that there were multiple note-takers reporting to journalists as well.

It would be stupid for Republicans to fabricate e-mails that the White House at any moment could have made public. Obviously Republicans put their own spin on the implications of the e-mails, just like they did with the House report. So if the White House knew Republicans had seen their e-mails, why didn't they just release them earlier?

The accusers have the burden of proof. The Republicans met that burden by transcribing leaked e-mails. Turns out they were right.

And how does this explain the State Department making its way into that email?
First of all, it has not been proven that a Republican intentionally altered any e-mails with the intentions of misleading the public.

Also, the leaked emails, according to the source, were "a long chain of email about State Dept concerns". So when WH emailer says, "take into account all equities", hes talking about the State equities, since that is what the email chain was about
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2013 3:18:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/21/2013 7:05:11 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
The White House emails explicitly confirm that Republican politicians have been doctoring evidence and lying about quotes in order to make this into a scandal. It seems that this is actually a scandal for Republicans, and not for Democrats.

Generally, once partisan, tendentious sources leak information that turns out to be wrong, nothing"s ever done about it. That"s for many reasons, some good or somewhat understandable, mostly bad. But on CBS Evening News tonight, Major Garrett did something I don"t feel like I"ve seen in a really long time or maybe ever on a network news cast. He basically said straight out: Republicans told us these were the quotes, that wasn"t true. Quick transcript after the jump "


SCOTT PELLEY: Also at his news conference today the president called for tighter security for U.S. diplomatic facilities to prevent an attack like the one in Benghazi, Libya, last year that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.

Of course, Benghazi has become a political controversy. Republicans claim that the Administration watered down the facts in talking points that were given to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice for television appearances while Mr. Obama was running for reelection. Republicans on Capitol Hill claim that they had found proof of this in White House e-mails that they leaked to reporters last week. Well, it turns out some of the quotes in those e-mails were wrong. Major Garrett is at the White House for us tonight. Major?

MAJOR GARRETT: Scott, Republicans have claimed that the State Department under Hillary Clinton was trying to protect itself from criticism. The White House released the real e-mails late yesterday and here"s what we found when we compared them to the quotes that had been provided by Republicans. One e-mail was written by Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes.

On Friday, Republicans leaked what they said was a quote from Rhodes. "We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don"t want to undermine the FBI investigation." But it turns out, in the actual e-mail Rhodes did not mention the State Department.

It read "We need to resolve this in a way that respects all the relevant equities, particularly the investigation." Republicans also provided what they said was a quote from an e-mail written by State Department Spokesman Victoria Nuland. The Republican version notes Nuland discussing: "The penultimate point is a paragraph talking about all the previous warnings provided by the Agency (CIA) about al-Qaeda"s presence and activities of al-Qaeda."

The actual e-mail from Nuland says: the ""penultimate point could be abused by Members to beat the State Department for not paying attention to Agency warnings"" The C.I.A. agreed with the concerns raised by the State Department and revised the talking points to make them less specific than the C.I.A."s original version, eliminating references to al-Qaeda and affiliates and earlier security warnings. There is no evidence, Scott, the White House orchestrated these changes.

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com...

Generally speaking, when one side is repeatedly dismissing a scandal as being a scandal, - it's a scandal.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2013 6:02:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Prior to the White House releasing the about 100 e-mails, some of the legislators were allowed to look at them, but not copy them or obtain copies. It seems that some recipients of the e-mails may also have leaked them. The released e-mails were heavily redacted -- parts of them were deleted by the Administration prior to release. Examples of the heavy editing are posted at http://theconservativetreehouse.com... About 25,000 additional e-mail messages were requested by congress but not released.

The difference between what was released and what had be previous leaked may be that 1. Whoever leaked the original had edited it; 2. The e-mail previously disclosed was not one of the 100 released, but rather one of the 25,000 not released; 3. The released e-mail was redacted to eliminated the reference to the State Department; 4. Evil Republicans did it, even though the difference is unimportant relative to the overall scandal.

At this point we know the CIA edited the talking points at the direction of the State Department to eliminate references to al Qaeda and terrorism; Secretary Clinton was told two hours after the attack that there was no demonstration at Benghazi; the CIA interviewed witnesses the next day; and no one at the CIA believed the story that the attack was due to a video. We know that ten days later, that President Obama was still telling the false story of the video.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2013 11:44:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
...CIA edited the talking points at the direction of the State Department to eliminate references to al Qaeda and terrorism...

Ok, I looked this up because this does seem to be significant.

My own opinion hasn't changed on this subject...the GOP is making mountains out of molehills on this.

The question I would ask regarding the above is "what if the federal government cited Al Qaeda's potential involvement on a 9/11 attack in Libya only 3 days after the attack?" IMHO that would have been unduly inflammatory - CIA Director Petraus himself testified that he asked for the redaction.
http://www.politico.com...

Also, terrorism was not written off as a potential motive, Obama was public about this the day after the incident.

The fact is, Libya was a warzone. We got Qaddafi. Do people die in a war? Yes. Is it terrible that an US ambassador died? Absolutely, he is a high-value target. However, in the end, we have four dead diplomats and regime change in Libya. Weighed against this reality, Chris Steven's death, tragic as it was, and as potentially irresponsible as it was, is a small price to pay.

All this ruckus points to IMHO is the GOP grasping at straws...they have to find something, ANYTHING, to attack the current administration, so they are using this symbolically charged 9/11 attack to press a case, even if they don't have one. After all, can they claim the budget/spending/economy? No, it was a bi-partisan failure. Can they attack Obama on healthcare? No, this was a widely-recognized bi-partisan issue. Foreign policy? No, Obama is as aggressive as any Republican candidate. What do they have left? Abortion, gay rights, gun control, and now Benghazi.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
1Percenter
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2013 12:45:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/29/2013 11:44:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
...CIA edited the talking points at the direction of the State Department to eliminate references to al Qaeda and terrorism...

Ok, I looked this up because this does seem to be significant.

My own opinion hasn't changed on this subject...the GOP is making mountains out of molehills on this.

The question I would ask regarding the above is "what if the federal government cited Al Qaeda's potential involvement on a 9/11 attack in Libya only 3 days after the attack?" IMHO that would have been unduly inflammatory - CIA Director Petraus himself testified that he asked for the redaction.
http://www.politico.com...

Also, terrorism was not written off as a potential motive, Obama was public about this the day after the incident.

The fact is, Libya was a warzone. We got Qaddafi. Do people die in a war? Yes. Is it terrible that an US ambassador died? Absolutely, he is a high-value target. However, in the end, we have four dead diplomats and regime change in Libya. Weighed against this reality, Chris Steven's death, tragic as it was, and as potentially irresponsible as it was, is a small price to pay.

All this ruckus points to IMHO is the GOP grasping at straws...they have to find something, ANYTHING, to attack the current administration, so they are using this symbolically charged 9/11 attack to press a case, even if they don't have one. After all, can they claim the budget/spending/economy? No, it was a bi-partisan failure. Can they attack Obama on healthcare? No, this was a widely-recognized bi-partisan issue. Foreign policy? No, Obama is as aggressive as any Republican candidate. What do they have left? Abortion, gay rights, gun control, and now Benghazi.

Wait, so you're trying to dismiss the Benghazi deaths as casualties of war, and the GOP are the ones grasping at straws? LOL.

We are at war with Al-Qaeda, not Lybia. But the Obama administration wants the public to feel like Al-qaeda was vanquished with Bin Laden. The Benghazi attacks were nothing more than a political inconvenience to Obamas re-election, hence the cover up.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2013 2:10:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Wait, so you're trying to dismiss the Benghazi deaths as casualties of war, and the GOP are the ones grasping at straws? LOL.

We are at war with Al-Qaeda, not Lybia. But the Obama administration wants the public to feel like Al-qaeda was vanquished with Bin Laden. The Benghazi attacks were nothing more than a political inconvenience to Obamas re-election, hence the cover up.

I am taking the perspective that we are attempting to co-opt the Middle East, so the entire Arab Spring movement would be something fermented by the US government (probably primarily the State Department) in order to facilitate regime change throughout the region.

Libya underwent a civil war concomitant with the Arab Spring. It is inconceivable to think that we were not involved in this civil war from the beginning, especially given our stance on Qaddafi in particular. It is inconceivable to think that the US position in the region was not strengthened by the ousting and death of Qaddafi. This war served US interests. We were direct participants. Therefore, the underlined is false.

The bolded is prima facie true but there's obviously much more to it than just that, which I addressed with my prior comment.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?