Yea, you actually said nothing here. You lied or wrongly assumed many things, especially about me and infowars??? lol All in all you spun and deflected the truth of what I was saying. When Bush was in office and I criticized him, YOU supported what I said, then it all changed when I told the truth about your messiah. End of story. Make all the accusations and spin all you want, but that's the truth about the fake liberals on this board.
Time Magazine has a good summary and copies of the edits. No smoking gun, but the specific edits like changing the word attack to demonstration bugs me. Plus, the narrative the white house ran with like the youtube video story reeks of deception. Is this impeachable or on par with Watergate, absolutely not imo. However, it's more reason why I can't stand politics.
http://swampland.time.com/2013/05/16...nghazi-emails/
Last edited by 2centsworth; 05-16-2013 at 04:32 PM.
It's obvious you aren't reading what I post, and don't really care what I actually think. Since you seem to prefer the narrative in your tiny head to reality... off. Last time I bother responding to you, Waste.
For the record:
I really don't like Obama. I think all tolled, he is a poor president.
The only thing he has going for him is that he is vastly better than the asswipes the GOP tried to put forth for the last two elections, but that isn't saying much.
Actually people agree with many things you say politically, just not all.
Plus, you're an asshole.
Is there anyone in the GOP for whom you would vote?
Obviously you continue to spin. Thanks for not responding anymore. You've been wrong enough.
lol chumps meltdown continues
lol you can't handle the fact I just posted
lol memes
It would help the GOP's political cause if it didn't ratchet up to DEFCON 1 at every Obama White House mishap that lurches into its sights.
Benghazi is the "most egregious coverup in American history" (in the words of Senator James Inhofe, R-Oklahoma), but if every other story is Watergate, too, then Inhofe and the rest become the Boys Who Cried Wolf.
With all due respect to George Will, who now refers to the Obama "regime" in his column and is citing Watergate articles of impeachment to indict the president, the IRS scandal only becomes Watergate if it turns out that the targeting of tea-party groups was under White House orders or direction.
There is no evidence of this.
Indeed, the IRS commissioner in charge at the time this happened was Douglas Shulman, a Bush appointee who testified before a House oversight committee in March 2012 that there had been "absolutely no targeting" of conservative groups.
Why would a Republican official be part of an Obama cover-up?
The same question must be asked about the State Department spinmeister and Cheney factotum Victoria Nuland, whose fingerprints are all over the Susan Rice "talking points" at the heart of that "most egregious coverup in American history."
The conspiracy plot thickens - or does it thin?
Meanwhile, a bigger scandal hovers over all of this: the IRS's granting of tax breaks to blatantly partisan political "public welfare" groups whether they be affiliated with the tea party, Karl Rove (Crossroads GPS), the Obama administration (Priorities USA), or fat-cat third-party movements (Americans Elect).
http://readersupportednews.org/opini...who-cried-wolf
I read a comment that said the Repugs are intimidating the IRS NEVER to think about vetting 501(4)c "social welfare" frauds.
CBS essentially accuses Republicans of doing some editing of their own:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_16...lier-reported/
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blog...k-scandal.htmlThe larger problem with the scandal culture in D.C. is that, because each example of government wrongdoing quickly morphs into a partisan effort to attack the White House (the same was true when a Republican was President), the actual remedies for the problems uncovered become almost beside the point. A U.S. congressman will probably go farther in his party hierarchy by roughing up Obama than he will by helping to pass legislation to ensure that all diplomatic posts have adequate security. Likewise, the I.R.S. abuses suggest the need for both major tax reform and changes to campaign-finance laws, while a future dragnet of news media phone records could be prevented if a strong federal shield law were in place. Don’t hold your breath waiting for any of these policy changes.
Paul Waldman on the semantic tussle over "terrorism" vs. "act of terror":
http://prospect.org/article/benghazi...nor-act-terrorI am hereby declaring 99 Pinocchios on Barack Obama, all the people who work for him, everyone in the Republican party, and most everyone in the press who has reported on Benghazi.
This is about what has to be one of the most inane disagreements in the history of American politics, the argument about whether Obama called the Benghazi attack an "act of terror" or a "terrorist attack." Incredibly, people are still bickering over this. The other day Darrell Issa expressed his outrage that Obama had, in his diabolical attempt to cover up the incident, used the phrase "act of terror," which, let's be honest, is almost like saying, "Way to go, al Qaeda!", instead of using the far, far, far more condemnatory phrase "terrorist attack." It's like the difference between saying "steaming pile of bull " when you ought to say "steaming bull pile"—anyone who can't tell the difference between the two obviously can't be trusted to run the country. Then the ordinarily reasonable Glenn Kessler, The Washington Post's fact-checker, sternly judged Obama to be guilty of a Four Pinnochio whopper, because at his last press conference he said, "The day after it happened, I acknowledged that this was an act of terrorism," when in fact he didn't say "act of terrorism but just "act of terror." Facts? Checked.
But here's what nobody seems to get: Benghazi was not a terrorist act. Or an act of terror. Or an act of terrorism.
Before my Republican friends start getting red in the face, that doesn't mean it wasn't awful. Many awful things are not terrorism. Pearl Harbor wasn't terrorism. Jeffrey Dahmer's murders weren't terrorism. Adam Sandler's Jack and Jill wasn't terrorism. Terrorism is something quite specific: the intentional killing of civilians in order to achieve a political end. It's the "civilian" part that makes it terrorism and not something else. Perhaps some conservatives think that any violent action committed by Muslims is terrorism, but it isn't.
As it happens, there's a nice succinct definition of terrorism in U.S. law, section 2656f(d) of le 22 of the United States Code, which reads, "the term 'terrorism' means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents."
So why wasn't Benghazi terrorism? Because the people targeted weren't civilians. As The Wall Street Journal has reported, "The U.S. effort in Benghazi was at its heart a CIA operation, according to officials briefed on the intelligence. Of the more than 30 American officials evacuated from Benghazi following the deadly assault, only seven worked for the State Department. Nearly all the rest worked for the CIA, under diplomatic cover, which was a principal purpose of the consulate, these officials said." CIA officials are not civilians. That doesn't make their deaths any less tragic or painful for their families, but it's the truth. Nor is a CIA outpost a civilian target.
Adam Sandler's Jack and Jill was a war crime.
They just want to get to the truth. This is not a political witch hunt...
Adam Sandler's movies by and large should be considered crimes against humanity
learned from william henry harrison
http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...-benghazi.htmlThe Central Intelligence Agency is the elephant in the room, big and clumsy and bumping into everything, even though everyone tries to avoid mentioning it. The CIA misjudged the security threat in Benghazi and contributed mightily to the confusion afterwards. The ass-covering of then-CIA Director David Petraeus, particularly, muddled the question of what could and should be told to the public.
On Wednesday, the White House released 100 pages of emails about the preparation of the Benghazi talking points in the days after the tragedy. They were written and edited for use by members of the intelligence committees on the Hill, and only later passed along, almost as an afterthought, to UN Ambassador Susan Rice for her much-criticized appearances on Sunday talk shows.
If you actually slog through the whole stack, a couple of points become apparent:
First of all, nobody in any of the drafts that were zipping back and forth between the CIA, the White House, the State Department and the FBI on September 14 questioned the central assertion of the first bullet point of the first CIA version: On the basis of the scant evidence available at that time, it said, the attacks in Benghazi “were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US embassy in Cairo” and evolved into a “direct assault” on the outposts in Benghazi.
In a press conference Thursday, President Obama demanded congressional help to prevent future tragedies like Benghazi.
This was clearly an important point for the CIA to make because it had failed completely to come up with any actionable intelligence of an impending attack in Benghazi before the event. And given the very substantial presence of the CIA in Benghazi at that time—a presence the agency actively tried to obscure in all subsequent reporting—that failure was hard to excuse. But if the attack were “spontaneous,” of course there wouldn’t have been a warning to give.
So the initial CIA drafts for the talking points were full of generalizations suggesting the agency really was aware of the overall threat environment (as was everybody else in Libya). In several early versions the agency kept making the point that it had warned the embassy in Cairo the night before the demonstrations that there were “social media reports” (my italics) “encouraging jihadists to break into the embassy.” That is, the embassy in Egypt, not Libya.
The early CIA drafts said the crowd that attacked in Benghazi “almost certainly was a mix of individuals from across many sectors of Libyan society. That being said, we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to Al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.”
But when challenged about how they knew this about Al Qaeda, the authors of the agency talking points backed down. As for the involvement of a shady Islamist group called Ansar al-Sharia, that bit of information had been reported already by journalists on the ground and in the early drafts of the talking points the CIA just cited “open sources,” meaning previously published reports. There was no indication that the agency knew anything directly about Ansar’s involvement.
The next morning all that CYA from the CIA was edited out with a few sweeping strokes of the pen by Michael Morell, the agency’s deputy director. What was left was very little because, in point of fact, the agency had few facts to muster. When Petraeus saw the end result he was disappointed. “No mention of the cable to Cairo, either?” he asked. That is, the cable that quoted the social media about an impending demonstration at the embassy in Egypt.
In December under orders from then–secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the State Department Accountability Review Board issued a report on Benghazi overseen by Ambassador Thomas Pickering and Admiral Michael Mullen, a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In the unclassified version, the Central Intelligence Agency, as such, is not mentioned a single time. There are just references to people in "the Annex."
In fact, the whole picture of the "consulate" in Benghazi, as portrayed in most of the headlines and hearings, is misleading. It was not really a consulate at all by the strict State Department definition of the term, it was called a "special mission" and had grown out of the improvised presence that Chris Stevens had established in Benghazi as the envoy to the rebels during the fighting to overthrow the Gaddafi dictatorship. From the beginning, the agency was there behind the scenes. When a terrorist bomb hit the hotel where Stevens was staying during the fighting in 2011, he and his team just moved in with the CIA at their so-called "Annex."
Even after Stevens officially became ambassador in Tripoli in mid-2012 he did not take the initiative to turn the diplomatic mission in Benghazi into a formal consulate. Partly as a result, it started to fall between the bureaucratic cracks at Foggy Bottom and couldn’t command as many security measures as it should have. as it should have. As one knowledgeable U.S. official told The Daily Beast's Eli Lake, "The Benghazi compound was a U.S, intelligence station with State Department cover."
"So why wasn't Benghazi terrorism? Because the people targeted weren't civilians. As The Wall Street Journal has reported, "The U.S. effort in Benghazi was at its heart a CIA operation, according to officials briefed on the intelligence. Of the more than 30 American officials evacuated from Benghazi following the deadly assault, only seven worked for the State Department. Nearly all the rest worked for the CIA, under diplomatic cover, which was a principal purpose of the consulate, these officials said." CIA officials are not civilians. That doesn't make their deaths any less tragic or painful for their families, but it's the truth. Nor is a CIA outpost a civilian target."
/thread
Republicans Altered Benghazi Emails, CBS News Report Claims
One day after The White House released 100 pages of Benghazi emails, a report has surfaced alleging that Republicans released a set with altered text.
CBS News reported Thursday that leaked versions sent out by the GOP last Friday had visible differences than Wednesday's official batch. Two correspondences that were singled out in the report came from National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes and State Department Spokeswoman Victoria Nuland.
The GOP version of Rhodes' comment, according to CBS News: "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."
The White House email: "We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation."
The GOP version of Nuland's comment, according to CBS News: 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 White House email: "The penultimate point could be abused by members to beat the State Department for not paying attention to Agency warnings."
The news parallels a Tuesday CNN report which initially introduced the contradiction between what was revealed in a White House Benghazi email version, versus what was reported in media outlets. 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.
Despite the White House's Wednesday move to release emails, Republicans continued to call for more information on Thursday.
In that April interim report on Benghazi (which Buck noted), the House Republicans cited these emails (in footnotes 56 and 57) to note an important point: "State Department emails reveal senior officials had 'serious concerns' about the talking points, because Members of Congress might attack the State Department for 'not paying attention to Agency warnings' about the growing threat in Benghazi."
"While these hundred are good and they shed light on what happened, we have nearly 25,000 that they haven't released," Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) told Fox News on Thursday.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...=Daily%20Brief
Repugs never tire of being witch-hunting, scandal-fabricating, bad-faith, 37-times-repealing-ACA assholes.
posted upstream two hours ago, silly bot.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Boutons