Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: blacken700 on May 15, 2013, 12:40:01 PM
-
Turns out the press got played again by Republicans. Jake Tapper has the smoking gun of the original email from the Obama administration which differs significantly from the “leaked emails” ABC ran with. In an exclusive for CNN, Tapper reveals that CNN has the original email sent by a top Obama aide, regarding the administration’s reaction to the Benghazi attacks. Tapper reported, “The actual email differs from how sources characterized it to two different media organizations.”
“The actual email from then-Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes appears to show that whomever (sic) leaked it did so in a way that made it appear that the White House primarily concerned with the State Department’s desire to remove references and warnings about specific terrorist groups so as to not bring criticism to the department,” Tapper concludes (my bold).
http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/14/cnn-exclusive-white-house-email-contradicts-benghazi-leaks/
The email was sent on Friday, September 14, 2012, at 9:34 p.m. and was obtained by CNN from a U.S. government source. Ironically, the email points out that there is a “ton of wrong information” coming from Congress and people who are not particularly informed (waving hello to Congressional Republicans and Mitt Romney):
“Sorry to be late to this discussion. We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation.
“There is a ton of wrong information getting out into the public domain from Congress and people who are not particularly informed. Insofar as we have firmed up assessments that don’t compromise intel or the investigation, we need to have the capability to correct the record, as there are significant policy and messaging ramifications that would flow from a hardened mis-impression.
“We can take this up tomorrow morning at deputies.”
http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/14/cnn-exclusive-white-house-email-contradicts-benghazi-leaks/
READ THE FULL EMAIL:
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2013/05/politics/white-house-benghazi-email/index.html
cont'
http://www.politicususa.com/jake-tapper-destroys-republican-benghazi-conspiracy-turns-emails-paraphrased.html
-
Not surprising.
-
Doesn't matter. He is through. He is quitting at the end of the week. Just ask "the sources".
-
i had to laugh like hell when somebody on here says his sources tell him :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
-
Doesn't matter. He is through. He is quitting at the end of the week. Just ask "the sources".
I thought he had already resigned and moved back to Kenya
-
I thought he had already resigned and moved back to Kenya
t
What ???
I thought Cruz or Biden was pres now. But im foreign what do i know.
-
t
What ???
I thought Cruz or Biden was pres now. But im foreign what do i know.
Rubio/Cuomo are taking over on Friday afternoon. Choombama gets to stay and clean out his things until then.
sources from CNN also say his hawaiian mansion is already in foreclosure, haha hilarious.
-
Rubio/Cuomo are taking over on Friday afternoon. Choombama gets to stay and clean out his things until then.
sources from CNN also say his hawaiian mansion is already in foreclosure, haha hilarious.
The fact of the matter is that the final emails and talking points are drastically different than what was initially told to the people on the ground.
The bullshit about a video that choombama went parroting along w rice is a total fabrication. The only one who makes choomer look bad is himself.
-
The fact of the matter is that the final emails and talking points are drastically different than what was initially told to the people on the ground.
The bullshit about a video that choombama went parroting along w rice is a total fabrication. The only one who makes choomer look bad is himself.
are you saying obama PURPOSEFULLY had them leak flawed emails, in an attempt to be able to discredit all of the bad things of the week with a cloudy "we've all seen the faked emails the RIGHT used to attack me..."?
Kinda like being busted by 5 cops for 5 crimes, then one of them (your cop buddy) confesses to planting evidence. Makes the other 4 fade into the memory...
Quite a little conspiracy theory there, 333386. You're very insightful!
-
are you saying obama PURPOSEFULLY had them leak flawed emails, in an attempt to be able to discredit all of the bad things of the week with a cloudy "we've all seen the faked emails the RIGHT used to attack me..."?
Kinda like being busted by 5 cops for 5 crimes, then one of them (your cop buddy) confesses to planting evidence. Makes the other 4 fade into the memory...
Quite a little conspiracy theory there, 333386. You're very insightful!
Jonathon Karl from ABC still says his story is the truth. I'm sure the WH leaked to CNN to try to do damage control on this/
-
Jonathon Karl from ABC still says his story is the truth. I'm sure the WH leaked to CNN to try to do damage control on this/
hahahaha what are your sources saying :D :D :D :D
-
Jonathon Karl from ABC still says his story is the truth. I'm sure the WH leaked to CNN to try to do damage control on this/
You're starting to see the strategy ;)
Team Obama is fighting back. Today we hear "the emails were faked" and "two rogue IRS agents took blame for everything". Obama skates again?
-
You're starting to see the strategy ;)
Team Obama is fighting back. Today we hear "the emails were faked" and "two rogue IRS agents took blame for everything". Obama skates again?
Actually for the GOP it would be better if Obama stays on for now since it will help them greatly in 2014 with obama's scandal plagued admn.
So they should wound him badly, but not enough to force him out
-
Actually for the GOP it would be better if Obama stays on for now since it will help them greatly in 2014 with obama's scandal plagued admn.
So they should wound him badly, but not enough to force him out
so a murderer should be allowed to keep his job because, well, it helps repubs politically?
um, i disagree. We know he let them die at benghazi. They were pencil pushers, not involved in anything shady, just doing their jobs, and he let them die.
Sorry, but i prefer impeachment. Let a guy keep his job after letting people get killed? Really bro?
-
so a murderer should be allowed to keep his job because, well, it helps repubs politically?
um, i disagree. We know he let them die at benghazi. They were pencil pushers, not involved in anything shady, just doing their jobs, and he let them die.
Sorry, but i prefer impeachment. Let a guy keep his job after letting people get killed? Really bro?
Reid will NEVER allow a trial in the Senate
-
Reid will NEVER allow a trial in the Senate
Reid and his buddies mccain and graham, right? lmao...
-
Reid will NEVER allow a trial in the Senate
bullshit, sweet prince. Dems let clinton get impeached over a fcking mouth job, bro.
must have been one amazing bj.
-
bullshit, sweet prince. Dems let clinton get impeached over a fcking mouth job, bro.
must have been one amazing bj.
But not removed.
-
The sources say that Obama is only here until his divorce is final. Pretty confident that he won't be running for election again in 2016.
-
But not removed.
yeah but history poops all over him for it. he & nixon.
and obama... well, if mccain had a set. which he doesn't. :(
Did you see obama completely pissed that some 'rogue' irs officials would single out conservative groups? puke.
-
::)
Get a clue idiots.
Don't be the last rat to sink with the ship.
-
RACAHEL MADDOW just called on ABC to apologize
for their quoting a Benghazi memo which they did not read; nor did their source have in hand and whose notes were in error.
That should just about take care of the Benghazi "scandal".
I think this might be the only time in history that 33 and maddow are in agreement - the leftist media lied here. They should apologize.
-
RACAHEL MADDOW just called on ABC to apologize
for their quoting a Benghazi memo which they did not read; nor did their source have in hand and whose notes were in error.
That should just about take care of the Benghazi "scandal".
I think this might be the only time in history that 33 and maddow are in agreement - the leftist media lied here. They should apologize.
The emails the WH released last night proved ABC was right
-
"two rogue IRS agents took blame for everything".
Fucking LOL and anyone who believes this is a massive moron.
-
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/newly-released-benghazi-emails-directly-contradict-white-house-claims_724603.html
Fail. Obama lied his ass off agan.
-
White House’s Benghazi email dump shows critical two-day gap, CIA objection
1:18 AM 05/16/2013
The Benghazi-related emails released by the White House late May 15 exclude the critical emails between administration officials that were sent during the crucial first two days after the deadly jihadi attack that killed four Americans last September.
The 100 pages of partially redacted emails also conclude with a dismissive message from CIA chief David Petraeus.
“Frankly, I’d just as soon not use this,” Petraeus said about the heavily edited, four-sentence “talking points” that the White House used to downplay Al Qaeda’s role in the Sep. 11 attack on the poorly protected diplomatic compound.
Ads by Google
Property Tax ReductionAre You Over-Assessed? Fill Out Our Online Worksheet Now! WestchesterPropertyTax.c om
“This release is long overdue [but] there are relevant documents the Administration has still refused to produce,” said a May 15 statement from Brendan Buck, press secretary to House Majority Leader John Boehner.
“We hope, however, that this limited release of documents is a sign of more cooperation to come,” he added.
The two-day gap — the first released email was sent 67 hours after the attack began — plus the Petraeus comment, undermines the White House’s explanation for the rewrite.
Officials, including spokesman Jay Carney, say CIA officials — not White House and State Department officials — rewrote a quick-reaction CIA report that had attributed the attack to an al-Qaeda affiliate.
“Even the smallest amount of scrutiny [shows the emails don’t] support their explanation,” said a May 15 tweet from Buck.
Ads by Google
“The White House’s explanation appears NOWHERE in the actual [email] documents. Nowhere. Not even a hint of it,” Buck added.
After the attack, White House officials used the edited talking points to bolster repeated claims that the organized attack was an unpredictable, spontaneous violent riot by Libyans who were angry about a California-made YouTube video.
The little-known video was sharply critical of Mohammad, the central prophet in Islam.
The video was repeatedly cited by President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during the crisis, which began only eight weeks before the 2012 election.
GOP legislators plan to continue investigating the September cover-up of al-Qaeda’s role, and the current cover-up over the White House’s role in rewriting the CIA report.
GOP officials also say more whistleblowers will testify in Congress about the attackers and the White House’s failure to send reinforcements to the beleaguered U.S. diplomats and soldiers.
An interim House report into the cover-up “found that ‘senior State Department officials requested the talking points be changed to avoid criticism for ignoring the threat environment in Benghazi and that those changes were ultimately made,” said the Buck statement.
“Those findings are confirmed by the emails released today … [and] the seemingly political nature of the State Department’s concerns raises questions about the motivations behind these changes and who at the State Department was seeking them,” he concluded.
Follow Neil on Twitter
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/16/white-houses-benghazi-email-dump-shows-critical-two-day-gap-cia-objection/#ixzz2TSls6c8I
-
just quit 33, your OCD is out of control. You need to calmer.
-
just quit 33, your OCD is out of control. You need to calmer.
Are you kidding?
I'm so loving this Scandalfest. Been laughing and smiling for days over this. It took 4 years too long, but the meltdown of O-TWINK is here.
-
Epic thread backfire.
-
Scandal Mania.
-
The amazing, shrinking Benghazi talking points
Hot Air ^ | 8:41 am on May 16, 2013 | Ed Morrissey
Posted on Thursday, May 16, 2013 12:19:30 PM by Ernest_at_the_Beach
The White House finally released the e-mail string that led to the creation of the talking points for the Benghazi terrorist attack that somehow completely missed the fact that it was a terrorist attack. Did that succeed in having the Obama administration’s argument that it reflected the best intelligence at the time? Not if you read page 57, in which everyone on the e-mail circuit was informed of this:
On Friday evening at 9:43 pm, the CIA acknowledged that ”FBI says AQ (not AQIM) was involved and they are pursuing that theory. So we are not ahead of law enforcement now[,]” referring to an earlier concern that identifying this as a terrorist attack would interfere with the FBI’s investigation of the attack. However, almost immediately thereafter, even the more generic mentions of purposeful attacks involving Islamic extremists disappear from the talking points, which left Susan Rice with little more to offer than a demonstration involving a YouTube video — a video which, it should be pointed out, never gets mentioned in the e-mail string.
Who made that decision? It’s difficult to say. The CIA did a lot of the editing on the talking points, but as Politico notes, much of that was driven by State Department concerns about how the information would reflect on them:
As the number of people handling the Benghazi talking points grew, the amount of information the document offered shrank.
Emails and documents released by the White House Wednesday reveal an editing process that valued caution over comprehensiveness as officials worked to remove language that would have assigned blame for the attack or suggested ways the incident could have been prevented. The release also showed that the CIA, and not the State Department, made the decision to scrub references to al Qaeda, al Qaeda linked groups, and prior terrorist attacks in the region.
But the newly public email chains suggest it was the State Department that was most concerned about taking the blame for the attack. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland sought changes to the talking points that would shield the agency — then led by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — from congressional accusations that it had failed to properly secure the post, given the unstable situation in that area.
At one point, Nuland even wrote to a chain of administration officials relaying her concern that the talking points could be used as a cudgel against the State Department.
Interestingly, Politico never picks up on the reference on page 57 that the FBI had already figured out that al-Qaeda was involved, and not the local branch/affiliate. Neither, for that matter, does Jake Tapper at CNN. Jon Karl doesn’t mention the FBI assessment on page 57, but does note another excised passage:
The emails confirm the ABC News report that the so-called “talking points” written by the CIA on the attack underwent extensive revisions – 12 versions – and that substantial changes were made after the State Department expressed concerns.
The early versions of the talking points, drafted entirely by the CIA, included references to the al Qaeda affiliate Ansar al-Sharia and to previous CIA warnings about terror threats in Benghazi. State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland expressed concerns about including those references in the talking points. …
The following sections were crossed out and removed from later drafts:
•“On 10 September the Agency notified Embassy Cairo of social media reports calling for a demonstration and encouraging jihadists to break into the Embassy.”
•“… as to who is responsible for the violence, although the crowd almost certainly was a mix of individuals. That being said, there are indications that Islamic extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.”
•“The wide availability of weapons and experienced fighters in Libya almost certainly contributed to the lethality of the attacks.”
•“The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al-Qaeda in Benghazi and eastern Libya. Since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interest in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador’s convoy. We cannot rule out that individuals had previously surveilled the US facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks.”
One official, whose name was redacted from the email chain, responded to the changes: “They are fine with me. But, pretty sure HPSCI won’t like them :-)” HPSCI refers to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, members of which had requested the talking points.
Stephen Hayes, another reporter whose work the White House wanted to refute, wrote later that the release confirmed his and Karl’s accounts:
The documents, first reported by THE WEEKLY STANDARD in articles here and here, directly contradict claims by White House press secretary Jay Carney and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that the revisions of those talking points were driven by the intelligence community and show heavy input from top Obama administration officials, particularly those at the State Department.
The emails provide further detail about the rewriting of the talking points during a 24-hour period from midday September 14 to midday September 15. As THE WEEKLY STANDARD previously reported, a briefing from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence shows that the big changes came in three waves – internally at the CIA, after email feedback from top administration officials, and during or after a meeting of high-ranking intelligence and national security officials the following morning.
The initial CIA changes softened some of the language about the participants in the Benghazi assault – from “Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda” to “Islamic extremists.” But CIA officials also added bullet points about the possible participation of Ansar al Sharia, an al Qaeda-linked jihadist group, and previous warnings about the deteriorating security situation in Benghazi. Those additions came out after the talking points were sent to “the interagency,” where the CIA’s final draft was further stripped down to little more than boilerplate. The half dozen references to terrorists – both in Benghazi and more generally – all but disappeared. Gone were references to al Qaeda, Ansar al Sharia, jihadists, Islamic extremists, etc. The only remaining mention was a note that “extremists” had participated in the attack.
As striking as what appears in the email traffic is what does not. There is no mention of the YouTube video that would become a central part of the administration’s explanation of the attacks to the American people until a brief mention in the subject line of emails coming out of an important meeting where further revisions were made.
Hayes notes that Hillary Clinton’s and Jay Carney’s attempts to shove the changes off onto the CIA were less than honest. Mike Morell made the changes, but on the urging of State:
Carney, in particular, is likely to face tough questioning about the contents of the emails because he made claims to reporters that were untrue. “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 – of these two institutions were changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility,’ because the word ‘consulate’ was inaccurate,” he told reporters on November 28, 2012.
That’s not true. An email sent at 9:15 PM on September 14, from an official in the CIA’s Office of Public Affairs to others at the agency, described the process this way. “The State Department had major reservations with much or most of the document. We revised the document with their concerns in mind.”
That directly contradicts what Carney said. It’s also difficult to reconcile with claims made by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during testimony she gave January 23 on Capitol Hill.
“It was an intelligence product,” she said, adding later that the “intelligence community was the principal decider about what went into talking points.” (See here for the original version of the talking points and the final one.)
The result? We have an unequivocal statement almost in the exact middle of the evolution of these data points that the FBI had already determined that the attack involved al-Qaeda, which shouldn’t have come as a surprise to anyone, considering that the attack took place on the anniversary of the original 9/11 attacks. Yet the final product, pushed in large part by State, eliminated all but the most ambiguous of suggestions that extremists had conducted an attack. The talking points as communicated on September 16th added in the YouTube video nonsense to which the administration clung through the funerals and Obama’s speech to the UN late in September before finally giving it up.
How did the YouTube video get added to the State Department presentation? How did everyone manage to ignore the FBI’s investigative direction and produce talking points that suggested almost the total opposite? Those are questions the HPSCI should ask, and demand answers.
Update: Eli Lake certainly noticed the FBI’s analysis, and also thinks the CIA is getting off too easy for its decision to trust the local militia for security.
-
They are now trying to block the heads of the Benghazi review committee from speaking publicly after they indicated a lot of mis truths and other issues have been stated.
33,
soon this will be over, what will you do then?
-
They are now trying to block the heads of the Benghazi review committee from speaking publicly after they indicated a lot of mis truths and other issues have been stated.
33,
soon this will be over, what will you do then?
what, you haven't heard about umbrella gate :D :D :D :D
-
They are now trying to block the heads of the Benghazi review committee from speaking publicly after they indicated a lot of mis truths and other issues have been stated.
33,
soon this will be over, what will you do then?
Who specifically is trying to "block" them from speaking publicly and how are they trying to do this?
-
Benghazi Review Board To Issa: Talk To Us In Public, Not In Private
Ambassador Thomas Pickering and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Michael Mullen are refusing a request from Rep. Darrel Issa to meet in private, preferring a public airing.
Thomas Pickering and Michael Mullen called the proposed closed-door proceeding an “inappropriate precondition” to their testifying before the committee in a letter sent Thursday to Issa, the chairman of the House Oversight panel. The letter was made public by the State Department.
“In the past week members of your Committee have publicly criticized – in both an open hearing and in the media – the work of the Accountability Review Board ,” the retired diplomat and the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff wrote. “Having taken liberal license to call into question the Board’s work, it is surprising that you now maintain that members of the Committee need a closed-door proceeding before being able to ask ‘informed questions’ at a public hearing.”
-
Benghazi Review Board To Issa: Talk To Us In Public, Not In Private
Ambassador Thomas Pickering and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Michael Mullen are refusing a request from Rep. Darrel Issa to meet in private, preferring a public airing.
Thomas Pickering and Michael Mullen called the proposed closed-door proceeding an “inappropriate precondition” to their testifying before the committee in a letter sent Thursday to Issa, the chairman of the House Oversight panel. The letter was made public by the State Department.
“In the past week members of your Committee have publicly criticized – in both an open hearing and in the media – the work of the Accountability Review Board ,” the retired diplomat and the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff wrote. “Having taken liberal license to call into question the Board’s work, it is surprising that you now maintain that members of the Committee need a closed-door proceeding before being able to ask ‘informed questions’ at a public hearing.”
Where is the part that says they are trying to block them from speaking in public?
-
Still haven't heard anyone who can articulate exactly what the scandal is, much less the impeachable offense
-
Still haven't heard anyone who can articulate exactly what the scandal is, much less the impeachable offense
we have an umbrella to worry about now :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D more smiley faces
-
Where is the part that says they are trying to block them from speaking in public?
You are right it doesn't say that . He wants a closed doors meeting unlike the other whistleblowers. He may have rational reasons for this but it appears he is trying to keep them from talking.
But he could be justified in his view but I don't see the purpose and would prefer public debate.
-
You are right it doesn't say that . He wants a closed doors meeting unlike the other whistleblowers. He may have rational reasons for this but it appears he is trying to keep them from talking.
But he could be justified in his view but I don't see the purpose and would prefer public debate.
He wanted a private meeting before they testified in public. Happens all the time.
-
He wanted a private meeting before they testified in public. Happens all the time.
If it happens all the time as you say then why did Thomas Pickering and Michael Mullen call it an “inappropriate precondition”
-
Still haven't heard anyone who can articulate exactly what the scandal is, much less the impeachable offense
maybe Gen. Patrius can help you with that...
-
maybe Gen. Patrius can help you with that...
it's pretty clear that you nor anyone else on the board can articulate it
-
If it happens all the time as you say then why did Thomas Pickering and Michael Mullen call it an “inappropriate precondition”
good question
-
good question
That's not a good question, it's a fucking idiot's question. Of course they're gonna call it that...they don't want to participate in it.
-
That's not a good question, it's a fucking idiot's question. Of course they're gonna call it that...they don't want to participate in it.
when did they say that
seems to me they have no problem at all speaking about it publicly which is how it should be
-
it's pretty clear that you nor anyone else on the board can articulate it
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=479463.0
yea the director of the CIA objecting to the talking points used by the obama admin in emails the white house was involved in means absolutely nothing
-
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=479463.0
yea the director of the CIA objecting to the talking points used by the obama admin in emails the white house was involved in means absolutely nothing
now all you have to do is explain how that is a scandal much less an impeachable offense
-
when did they say that
seems to me they have no problem at all speaking about it publicly which is how it should be
They don't want to participate in the private meeting dumbfuck. That really shot over your head? Explains a lot...
The private meeting is nothing more than to allow committee members to prepare questions, and note areas where they want more clarification. Issa is still giving them a public forum.
-
They don't want to participate in the private meeting dumbfuck. That really shot over your head? Explains a lot...
The private meeting is nothing more than to allow committee members to prepare questions, and note areas where they want more clarification. Issa is still giving them a public forum.
can you post a link to your information
-
now all you have to do is explain how that is a scandal much less an impeachable offense
the head of the CIA who the admin says gave them the talking points objected to those very same talking points in emails with the admin. Then the admin ran with a story they knew was not accurate and then blamed the very ppl that told them it wasnt accurate.....
-
They don't want to participate in the private meeting dumbfuck. That really shot over your head? Explains a lot...
The private meeting is nothing more than to allow committee members to prepare questions, and note areas where they want more clarification. Issa is still giving them a public forum.
yeah - they said they will talk in public instead and they believe that private meeting to be inappropriate and I agree
did you miss that part dumbfuck
Issa and the committee members don't need a private meeting to "prepare questions and notes"
-
yeah - they said they will talk in public instead and they believe that private meeting to be inappropriate and I agree
did you miss that part dumbfuck
Issa and the committee members don't need a private meeting to "prepare questions and notes"
lol...holy shit you're dumb. No wonder you're too chickenshit to tell anybody what you do, lmfao.
Well, Issa feels it is needed. I doubt this is going anywhere as I don't think they can force them to do it privately (but I don't know for certain).
-
sounds like he only wants a closed door meeting
Issa also suggested on the program that Pickering and Mullen meet with the committee behind closed doors so as not to create "some sort of stage show." But the two assert in their letter that a public hearing is a "more appropriate forum" and accuse Issa of changing his "position on the terms of our appearance."
-
sounds like he only wants a closed door meeting
Issa also suggested on the program that Pickering and Mullen meet with the committee behind closed doors so as not to create "some sort of stage show." But the two assert in their letter that a public hearing is a "more appropriate forum" and accuse Issa of changing his "position on the terms of our appearance."
bump
-
bump
Everything should be out on the open.
Obama lied - the nation died
-
well not according to issa he doesn't want to make a side show of it,this coming from the ring master priceless
-
well not according to issa he doesn't want to make a side show of it,this coming from the ring master priceless
tHIS IS ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW -
Obama cared more about going to bed knowing he had a party w Jay Z the next day than try to help the 40 people under attack that night.
-
tHIS IS ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW -
Obama cared more about going to bed knowing he had a party w Jay Z the next day than try to help the 40 people under attack that night.
that's the problem with you you don't deal with facts typ. far right nutjob :D
-
that's the problem with you you don't deal with facts typ. far right nutjob :D
You mean like these? http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=441173.0
-
You mean like these? http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=441173.0
you being a mod should know to stick on topic,so can you show the emails were not edited :D :D :D :D :D more smiley faces
-
you being a mod should know to stick on topic,so can you show the emails were not edited :D :D :D :D :D more smiley faces
You said "that's the problem with you you don't deal with facts." You mean facts like these?
Source: ABC News
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice said the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi was not premeditated, directly contradicting top Libyan officials who say the attack was planned in advance.
“Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous – not a premeditated – response to what had transpired in Cairo,” Rice told me this morning on “This Week.”
“In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated,” Rice said, referring to protests in Egypt Tuesday over a film that depicts the Prophet Muhammad as a fraud. Protesters in Cairo breached the walls of the U.S. American Embassy, tearing apart an American flag.
“We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to – or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo,” Rice said. “And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons… And it then evolved from there.”
Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/ambassador-susan-rice-libya-attack-not-premeditated/
-
again the topic is Leaked Emails Were EDITED To Make Obama LOOK BAD.this should not be to hard to understand :D :D :D :D :D
-
again the topic is Leaked Emails Were EDITED To Make Obama LOOK BAD.this should not be to hard to understand :D :D :D :D :D
Obama looks terrible on his own going to a fundraiser the next day w jay z
-
HEHEHEHEEH! Blacken you are an idiot. FOOL!!
The White House claim of ‘doctored e-mails... to smear the president’
Posted by Glenn Kesslerat 06:00 AM ET, 05/21/2013
2218
Share to Facebook
Share on Twitter
Share via Email
Print Article
More
(CHRIS USHER/AP) “That’s a very serious offense that happened where Republicans on the Hill, we voluntarily provided these e-mails to, took one of them, doctored it and gave it to ABC News in an attempt to smear the president.”
— White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer, appearing on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” May 19, 2013
“I think one of the problems that there’s so much controversy here is because one of the e-mails was doctored by a Republican source and given to the media to falsely smear the president.”
— Pfeiffer, on Fox News Sunday, May 19
“They received these e-mails months ago, didn’t say a word about it, didn’t complain ... And then last week a Republican source provided to Jon Karl of ABC News a doctored version of a White House e-mail that started this entire fear. After 25,000 pieces of paper are provided to Congress they have to doctor e-mail to make political hay, you know they’re getting desperate here.”
— Pfeiffer, on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” May 19
When a White House aide uses the same word — “doctored” — on three television shows, you know it is a carefully crafted talking point. On top of that, he says that this was done to “smear the president.”
These are strong words concerning the 2012 attack in Benghazi, Libya, that resulted in the death of the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans. But is this a case of the White House communications chief taking liberties with the facts?
The Facts
Under pressure, the White House in March provided the e-mails to Capitol Hill Republicans surrounding the development of its talking points on the Benghazi attack when John Brennan was nominated to be CIA director. The talking points became an issue because they were used by U.N. Ambassador Susan E. Rice on the Sunday public affairs shows the week after the attack. Republicans, however, were not permitted to have copies of e-mails, but could only take notes on them.
The broad outlines of the mail exchanges were first disclosed in an April 23 report by House Republicans. The report quoted from and summarized various e-mails, but without the names of the senders attached. Far from Pfeiffer’s claim that Republicans “didn’t complain,” the report was highly critical.
“The Administration’s talking points were developed in an interagency process that focused more on protecting the reputation and credibility of the State Department than on explaining to the American people the facts surrounding the fatal attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities and personnel in Libya,” the report asserted.
In early May, Stephen Hayes of The Weekly Standard reported more details on the e-mails, in some cases explaining which officials were involved. But a central focus of his article was on the different versions of the talking points that emerged from the interagency process. Hayes, in most cases, summarized the e-mails unless quotes were in the House report.
Then, on May 10, ABC’s Jonathan Karl reported that there were 12 versions of talking points, under the headline: “Exclusive: Benghazi Talking Points Underwent 12 Revisions, Scrubbed of Terror Reference.” That was the key focus of the online article, as well as Karl’s appearances on the broadcast network that day. Karl, in fact, got all 12 versions of the talking points correct.
Karl started the article by citing “White House e-mails reviewed by ABC News.”
Later, he referred to “summaries of White House and State Department e-mails” and then lower in the article quoted from those e-mail summaries directly. As worded, the article gave the impression that these were actual quotes from e-mails.
In particular, Karl quotes Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes as writing late on the evening of Sept. 14:
“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. We thus will work through the talking points tomorrow morning at the Deputies Committee meeting.”
On May 13, CNN obtained the actual e-mail written by Rhodes, which said:
“We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation….We can take this up tomorrow morning at deputies.”
Note the correct version is missing a direct reference to the State Department. CNN, which had only obtained the single e-mail, used strong words in its report about its competitor, ABC: “Whoever provided those accounts seemingly invented the notion that Rhodes wanted the concerns of the State Department specifically addressed.”
When the White House last week released all of its e-mails, it became clear that Rhodes was responding at the tail end of a series of e-mail exchanges that largely discussed the State Department concerns.
In other words, the summary would have been fairly close if the commas had been removed and replaced with brackets: “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.”
So is this more a case of some sloppy note-taking and reportorial imprecision? (There were also some discrepancies concerning an e-mail from State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland.) Hayes, on May 14, noted: “Neither of my pieces quoted the Rhodes e-mail. This was no accident. Near-verbatim is not verbatim.”
Karl over the weekend tweeted, “I sincerely regret the error I made describing an email from Ben Rhodes. I should have stated, as I did elsewhere, the reporting was based on a summary provided by a source. I apologize for my mistake.” He declined to comment further.
“I didn’t speak to anyone who represented the email summaries as direct quotes,” Hayes said in an e-mail Monday. “I called around on Capitol Hill and elsewhere to follow up on what I thought were interesting footnotes in the House GOP report on Benghazi. Those notes referred to specific emails (and included exact times) and I thought there might be more to learn.”
Moreover, the full disclosure of e-mails makes it clear that White House officials were concerned about the State Department’s objections.
Referring to then deputy national security adviser (and now White House chief of staff), White House press officer Tommy Vietor wrote at 6:21 p.m.: “Denis [McDonough] would also like to make sure the highlighted portions are fully coordinated with the State Department in the event they get inquiries.” (He’s referring to sections in the draft that mention Ansar al-Sharia and to prior terror warnings in Benghazi — both of which were removed in the final draft.)
There is also the comment at 9:14 p.m. by a CIA official: “The State Department had major reservations with much or most of the document. We revised the document with those concerns in mind.”
White House officials argue that these e-mails show that the White House was coordinating the development of the talking points, favoring no side. Indeed, for all the accusations that the White House deliberately changed the talking points, this e-mail comment from a CIA official would greatly undercut that claim: “The White House cleared quickly, but State has major concerns.”
White House officials said that Pfeiffer’s claim of “doctored” e-mails is supported by a report on May 16 by CBS’s Major Garrett: “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 that 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 of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation.’”
News anchor Scott Pelley, in introducing Garrett’s report, announced that “it turns out some of the quotes in those e-mails were wrong.”
Garrett referred a call to Sonya McNair, CBS spokeswoman, who said “Major’s report speaks for itself.”
Garrett’s report appears to quoting Karl’s version of the Rhodes e-mail. But oddly it also seems to be rebuke of reporting by his CBS colleague, Sharyl Attkisson, who published a story on May 10 that initially purported to quote from the e-mails. Yet her Rhodes quote is slightly different: “We don’t want to undermine the investigation...we want to address every department’s equities including the State Department, so we’ll deal with this at the Deputies meeting.” Garrett’s report, however, corrected her version of the Nuland e-mail, not Karl’s.
A columnist for Mediaite reported that Attkisson, when she filed her story, warned these e-mails were paraphrased. After Garrett’s report aired, Attkisson reiterated that point in an e-mail to reporters and editors: “The talking point draft emails read to CBS News last Friday were from handwritten notes, and the attorney source explained why they were not direct quotes and could not be represented as such, as I noted at the top of my reporting for important context.”
Attkisson did not respond to a request for comment. But since then, CBS has updated her original May 10 story with similar language, noting that this paragraph was “included in the original story submission but was omitted from a previous version due to an inadvertent error in the editing process.”
(In one of those only-in-Washington connections, we need to note that David Rhodes, the president of CBS News, is the brother of Ben Rhodes.)
While the White House has tried to highlight ABC’s error on the Rhodes e-mail, it is worth noting that it did not play a prominent role in much of the news coverage. (The one exception is Fox News.) After the ABC report, the Rhodes e-mail was not part of the nightly newscasts; neither was it cited in the news reports in The New York Times and The Washington Post. USA Today and The Los Angeles Times mentioned Rhodes, but at the bottom of the story. “Ben Rhodes, a deputy national security advisor at the White House, wrote in a subsequent email that Nuland’s concerns would have to be taken into account,” the Times said.
The article also said: “White House Press Secretary Jay Carney did not dispute their authenticity during a lengthy explanation Friday afternoon.”
White House officials disagreed with our findings. “ABC News reported they obtained the e-mails, CNN reported they were doctored, and CBS News reported they were from Republican sources,” said spokesman Eric Schultz.
The Pinocchio Test
It has long been part of the Washington game for officials to discredit a news story by playing up errors in a relatively small part of it. Pfeiffer gives the impression that GOP operatives deliberately tried to “smear the president” with false, doctored e-mails.
But the reporters involved have indicated they were told by their sources that these were summaries, taken from notes of e-mails that could not be kept. The fact that slightly different versions of the e-mails were reported by different journalists suggests there were different note-takers as well.
Indeed, Republicans would have been foolish to seriously doctor e-mails that the White House at any moment could have released (and eventually did). Clearly, of course, Republicans would put their own spin on what the e-mails meant, as they did in the House report. Given that the e-mails were almost certain to leak once they were sent to Capitol Hill, it’s a wonder the White House did not proactively release them earlier.
The burden of proof lies with the accuser. Despite Pfeiffer’s claim of political skullduggery, we see little evidence that much was at play here besides imprecise wordsmithing or editing errors by journalists.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-white-house-claim-of-doctored-e-mails-to-smear-the-president/2013/05/20/a23343b6-c19e-11e2-8bd8-2788030e6b44_blog.html
-
Ouch.
-
lets all be honest we didnt need that article to know that blacken was a moron
-
lol...holy shit you're dumb. No wonder you're too chickenshit to tell anybody what you do, lmfao.
Well, Issa feels it is needed. I doubt this is going anywhere as I don't think they can force them to do it privately (but I don't know for certain).
Tough shit for Issa (and OF COURSE Issa can't force them to do it privately moron)
Tough shit for you too
I don't know what you do nor do I give a shit
Why would you give a rats ass what I do
-
lets all be honest we didnt need that article to know that blacken was a moron
Quote from: LurkerNoMore on March 28, 2013, 12:35:08 PM
Good luck with that. He overcompensates by trying to string buzz words together in an attempt to sound witty and knowledgeable which in reality leaves any argument or stance of his with a bigger gap in it than there was before.
Particularly amusing is his habit of trying to reverse your statement back in the form of a rhetorical question in the hopes that you will make his argument for him. Since he isn't exactly sure of what he is trying to say or how to convey it. LOL fits tonymctunes to the tee
-
Quote from: LurkerNoMore on March 28, 2013, 12:35:08 PM
Good luck with that. He overcompensates by trying to string buzz words together in an attempt to sound witty and knowledgeable which in reality leaves any argument or stance of his with a bigger gap in it than there was before.
Particularly amusing is his habit of trying to reverse your statement back in the form of a rhetorical question in the hopes that you will make his argument for him. Since he isn't exactly sure of what he is trying to say or how to convey it. LOL fits tonymctunes to the tee
what buzz word didnt you understand?
honest or moron? hahhaha
-
what buzz word didnt you understand?
honest or moron? hahhaha
in short, the paragraph says your a phony :D :D :D :D :D :D :D had to tell you because you probably thought it was a compliment :D :D
-
in short, the paragraph says your a phony :D :D :D :D :D :D :D had to tell you because you probably thought it was a compliment :D :D
hahah wonderful, someone doesnt like me....OH NOSSSS!!!!
-
Tough shit for Issa (and OF COURSE Issa can't force them to do it privately moron)
As usual, you're wrong...dumbfuck.
WASHINGTON (AP) — A House committee chairman has withdrawn a subpoena to compel a retired diplomat to answer questions in private about an independent investigation of last year's attack in Benghazi, Libya.
Rep. Darrell Issa (EYE'-suh) says he acted after Thomas Pickering agreed to meet with the House Oversight and Committee Reform Committee behind closed doors.
Pickering and former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mike Mullen led the investigation into the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. diplomat mission. Four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador, were killed.
Pickering had offered to testify before Issa's committee in public. But Issa said a private meeting was needed first so the committee could understand how the investigation was conducted.
Issa had summoned Pickering to appear Thursday, but his appearance is now being rescheduled.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/benghazi-review-leader-oks-meeting-committee
-
As usual, you're wrong...dumbfuck.
WASHINGTON (AP) — A House committee chairman has withdrawn a subpoena to compel a retired diplomat to answer questions in private about an independent investigation of last year's attack in Benghazi, Libya.
Rep. Darrell Issa (EYE'-suh) says he acted after Thomas Pickering agreed to meet with the House Oversight and Committee Reform Committee behind closed doors.
Pickering and former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mike Mullen led the investigation into the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. diplomat mission. Four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador, were killed.
Pickering had offered to testify before Issa's committee in public. But Issa said a private meeting was needed first so the committee could understand how the investigation was conducted.
Issa had summoned Pickering to appear Thursday, but his appearance is now being rescheduled.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/benghazi-review-leader-oks-meeting-committee
notice that he still needed Pickering to agree which he could have chosen not to do
the subpoena would have required him to testify before a congressional committee ....not in private and even then Pickering could have invoked his 5th amendment if he wanted to
Pickering agreed to the private meeting to avoid the subpoena but he could have chosen that option and avoided a private meeting
-
notice that he still needed Pickering to agree which he could have chosen not to do
the subpoena would have required him to testify before a congressional committee ....not in private and even then Pickering could have invoked his 5th amendment if he wanted to
Pickering agreed to the private meeting to avoid the subpoena but he could have chosen that option and avoided a private meeting
Uh no. Nothing states that Pickering had to agree. And the Thursday meeting was to be in private. The fact that it was before other committee members is irrelevant.
Don't worry, we all know ur not man enough to own up.
But the fact remains u don't know ur head from ur ass.
Keep trying, lol
Dumbfuck
-
Uh no. Nothing states that Pickering had to agree. And the Thursday meeting was to be in private. The fact that it was before other committee members is irrelevant.
Don't worry, we all know ur not man enough to own up.
But the fact remains u don't know ur head from ur ass.
Keep trying, lol
Dumbfuck
If Pickering chose to respond to the subpoena it would have been to give public testimony just like you saw today with the woman who pleaded the fifth
Issa used that a stick to get him to meet in private
Issa probably knows that Pickering would have made him look like a fool in public which is why he (Issa) didn't want it and why Pickering did want it
-
If Pickering chose to respond to the subpoena it would have been to give public testimony just like you saw today with the woman who pleaded the fifth
Issa used that a stick to get him to meet in private
Issa probably knows that Pickering would have made him look like a fool in public which is why he (Issa) didn't want it and why Pickering did want it
No, dumbfuck, it would have been in private.
WASHINGTON (AP) — A House committee chairman has withdrawn a subpoena to compel a retired diplomat to answer questions in private about an independent investigation of last year's attack in Benghazi, Libya.
Keep trying, keep failing, lol.
-
Representative Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), who heads the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, on Friday answered a letter from Pickering by issuing a subpoena requiring him to sit for a deposition with committee staff rather than proceed directly to a public hearing as Pickering had volunteered to do.
http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/rep-issa-subpoenas-ambassador-pickering-testify-benghazi-report/
Starting to catch on?
Dumbfuck, lol
-
Representative Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), who heads the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, on Friday answered a letter from Pickering by issuing a subpoena requiring him to sit for a deposition with committee staff rather than proceed directly to a public hearing as Pickering had volunteered to do.
http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/rep-issa-subpoenas-ambassador-pickering-testify-benghazi-report/
Starting to catch on?
Dumbfuck, lol
fine - you win
Issa can compel him to testify in private via subpoena
what I read (not here) said they can subpoena to appear before a committee which I assumed was public
congrats on your victory
-
LOL
-
LOL
pay attention dipshit
that's how you concede when you are wrong
-
pay attention dipshit
that's how you concede when you are wrong
I concede all the time just never with you as youre the one who is always wrong
-
I concede all the time just never with you as youre the one who is always wrong
sure thing champ
whatever you say
-
IMO the reAl scandal will be if Issa doesn't allow him to testify in public after this meeting. Then we should all be ip in arms regardless of party.
-
IMO the reAl scandal will be if Issa doesn't allow him to testify in public after this meeting. Then we should all be ip in arms regardless of party.
The ones who need to testify are otwink Hillary brennan and whoever in the chain of command fd this up
-
The ones who need to testify are otwink Hillary brennan and whoever in the chain of command fd this up
nothing was fucked up retard, it was all rationally dealt with.
-
nothing was fucked up retard, it was all rationally dealt with.
LOL!!! GMAFB
-
LOL!!! GMAFB
still no evidence
still no facts
you are delusional.
You are constantly wrong.
-
Pickerings' own report said the entire thing was a fiasco and clusterfuck
Just like everything else OTWINK gets involved in - IRS, Lybia, Egypt, ATF, DOJ you name it.
still no evidence
still no facts
you are delusional.
You are constantly wrong.
-
Pickerings' own report said the entire thing was a fiasco and clusterfuck
Just like everything else OTWINK gets involved in - IRS, Lybia, Egypt, ATF, DOJ you name it.
he said the criticisms were not based in fact.
listen just go lie down and take a deep breath you have several more years of Obama.
-
lets all be honest we didnt need that article to know that blacken was a moron
;D
-
;D
the two board idiots laughing at each other :D :D :D :D :D :D priceless
-
the two board idiots laughing at each other :D :D :D :D :D :D priceless
Awwwwww. The board's retard got his feelings hurt. Poor little chap.
-
Funny - when obama leaked details to the press on things that made him look good he never said a word about leakers.
OTWINK, like the scum and sludge that supports him, is a miserable lying THUG
-
Awwwwww. The board's retard got his feelings hurt. Poor little chap.
hahahahah like i said the guy that doesn't know how math can be used to figure time buy believes in talking snakes and 800 year old men priceless
-
Funny - when obama leaked details to the press on things that made him look good he never said a word about leakers.
OTWINK, like the scum and sludge that supports him, is a miserable lying THUG
the white house did not alter the emails you nancy.