Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: blacken700 on May 17, 2013, 09:41:23 AM
-
Josh Marshall
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.
(ed.note: This is a rush transcription so some spelling and capitalization is off.)
http://editors.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2013/05/wow_this_is_pretty_epic.php
There were meaningful Benghazi lies after all
By Steve Benen
<...>
But if we're going to talk about real political scandals, can we at least have a conversation about Republicans lying to reporters about Benghazi?
<...>
For those who can't watch clips online, CBS's Major Garrett told viewers last night something news consumers don't usually see or hear: House Republicans gave journalists bogus information, apparently on purpose, in the hopes of advancing the right's version of the Benghazi story.
As Josh Marshall explained, "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."
Given what we now know, congressional Republicans saw all of these materials in March, couldn't find anything controversial, and moved on. But last week, desperate to manufacture a scandal, unnamed Republicans on Capitol Hill started giving "quotes" from the materials to reporters, making it seem as if the White House made politically motivated edits of Benghazi talking points.
<...>
Maybe this was just an innocent mistake, rather than a deliberate attempt at deception? Nope: "On Monday, Mother Jones noted that the Republicans' interim report included the correct version of the emails, signaling that more malice and less incompetence may have been at play with the alleged alterations."
- more -
http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/05/17/18319321-there-were-meaningful-benghazi-lies-after-all
-
no comments, mmm this will get the attention of some
-
When a wackjob non-lib website reports this maybe it will get some play..but uberdouch TPM...keep trying.
-
......and it still does nothing to explain Rice and the Sunday shows.....nothing to explain blaming that webmovie...does nothing to explain why extra security wasn't provided...does nothing to explain demotions and threats to DOS employee's...does nothing to explain stand down order. Should I continue.
-
When a wackjob non-lib website reports this maybe it will get some play..but uberdouch TPM...keep trying.
your big scandal will end up nothing :D :D :D but the repubs are use to it,the far right,the punch line for the rest of us normal people :D :D
-
your big scandal will end up nothing :D :D :D but the repubs are use to it,the far right,the punch line for the rest of us normal people :D :D
The scandal is not only the talking points, which themselves turned out to be utter bs
-
Libs world is falling apart day by day, they need something to keep them going. LOL
-
Libs world is falling apart day by day, they need something to keep them going. LOL
hahahahaa the repubs still haven't got over losing to a black man twice :D :D :D
-
hahahahaa the repubs still haven't got over losing to a black man twice :D :D :D
Doesn't matter. He's good lying politician who can't lead. He "won" a position not having a clue on what to do. It's like taking a McDonalds shift manager and making him CEO of Apple or Microsoft.
-
no comments, mmm this will get the attention of some
I don't waste my time reading your posts. Your intellectual reputation is shit. Hope that helps :D
-
Libs world is falling apart day by day, they need something to keep them going. LOL
Really? Because it seems to be right wingnuts that are in daily meltdown over Obama.
-
Really? Because it seems to be right wingnuts that are in daily meltdown over Obama.
Yep, its like watching a company being run intothe ground by a kid who inherited his families company of 230 years.
-
Yep, its like watching a company being run intothe ground by a kid who inherited his families company of 230 years.
Never before has such a delusional, incompetent, inept, corrupt, worthless, scumbag like Obama squandered such wealth and inheritances having done zilch to earn it.
-
HEHEHEHEEH!!
Well, if this is true I am sure it will bring the Benghazi investigation to a halt. But, it won't.
-
Doesn't matter. He's good lying politician who can't lead. He "won" a position not having a clue on what to do. It's like taking a McDonalds shift manager and making him CEO of Apple or Microsoft.
;D
-
Josh Marshall
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.
(ed.note: This is a rush transcription so some spelling and capitalization is off.)
http://editors.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2013/05/wow_this_is_pretty_epic.php
There were meaningful Benghazi lies after all
By Steve Benen
<...>
But if we're going to talk about real political scandals, can we at least have a conversation about Republicans lying to reporters about Benghazi?
<...>
For those who can't watch clips online, CBS's Major Garrett told viewers last night something news consumers don't usually see or hear: House Republicans gave journalists bogus information, apparently on purpose, in the hopes of advancing the right's version of the Benghazi story.
As Josh Marshall explained, "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."
Given what we now know, congressional Republicans saw all of these materials in March, couldn't find anything controversial, and moved on. But last week, desperate to manufacture a scandal, unnamed Republicans on Capitol Hill started giving "quotes" from the materials to reporters, making it seem as if the White House made politically motivated edits of Benghazi talking points.
<...>
Maybe this was just an innocent mistake, rather than a deliberate attempt at deception? Nope: "On Monday, Mother Jones noted that the Republicans' interim report included the correct version of the emails, signaling that more malice and less incompetence may have been at play with the alleged alterations."
- more -
http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/05/17/18319321-there-were-meaningful-benghazi-lies-after-all
Cutting and pasting from DU again. ::)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022857236
-
so what's not true ::) more smiley faces :D :D :D :D :D :D
-
......and it still does nothing to explain Rice and the Sunday shows.....nothing to explain blaming that webmovie...does nothing to explain why extra security wasn't provided...does nothing to explain demotions and threats to DOS employee's...does nothing to explain stand down order. Should I continue.
You anus, they said (patreus) it was tactical, that they did not want to release all the info, plus they were somewhat uncertain.
How doesn't this settle the issue, what kind of coverup is this, the shittest one in history. I can't even imagine what intended benefits Rice's comments would provide.