Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.
Alexis de Tocqueville
the defense as of today is so thin, one tremor and the whole structure collapses
as in, why would ben rhodes, obama's counterterrorism adviser and brother of cbs new president david, send an email to jake tapper, formerly abc, now cnn, essentially trying to show that the entire summaries of the talking-points email chain released by evil darrell issa, which was used by jonathan karl and everyone else to begin their analyses, was somehow twisted outta context or even outright deception
The Benghazi revisions, revisited - POLITICO.comThe upshot here is that while ABC reporter Jon Karl's account of the email suggests Rhodes had voiced concern over the State Dept.'s suggested edits to the talking points, the full email obtained by Tapper suggests he did not single out the State Dept. and merely wanted to address the concerns of everyone involved in the editing process.
But ABC News says the new Rhodes email is not necessarily at odds with its initial report, which -- as Karl stated at the time -- was based on "summaries" of White House and State Department emails. (The piece was certainly lacking for clarity; see Update below.)
"Assuming the email reported by CNN is accurate, it is consistent with the summary quoted by Jon Karl," Jeffrey Schneider, the senior vice president and spokesman for ABC News, told POLITICO.
The new email doesn't change the fact that the White House and State Dept. were involved in the revision process, nor that the State Dept. voiced specific concerns about references to terror. Indeed, it doesn't even prove that Rhodes wasn't concerned about the State Dept.'s concerns about "terror."
So what's going on here? Tapper's "U.S. government source" is likely drawing attention to the discrepancy between Karl's summary of the email and the actual content of the email in order to discredit ABC's report and Karl's sources. Indeed, on Tuesday afternoon the White House accused congressional Republicans of fabricating the emails cited in Karl's report.
One thing you'll learn if you study political communications: Nothing seems to work so well as using one small error in a report to discredit the entire report. CNN's "U.S. government source" must be overjoyed that Tapper used the word "inaccurate" four times** when referring to a report that is, for the most part, accurate.
CNN has since removed three of the four uses of the word "inaccurate" from its report.
jonathan karl offers himself a rather lengthy account of standing by his story, open the link and read it, calling in conclusion for this woebegone white house to come clean by releasing ALL the emails
karl's not alone:
Chuck Todd: "Attention White House, Release All The E-Mails" | RealClearPolitics
Video: Angus King: Release Benghazi emails - POLITICO.com
you look at all that objectively and you can come to no other conclusion than the defense, at least as of this morning, has got squat
why, why would it be, how could it be that the president of the declining states of amercia could have got himself so far into squat
oh well, what difference does it make, it was a long time ago, the ambassador knew what he was getting into, death is part of life
however, just wednesday the waylaid white house released 100 select pages of email chain, you'd think to bolster their tremulous house of cards---but that too badly backfired
newly released messages included:
""the white house cleared quickly but state had major concerns"
"serious concerns about arming members of congress'
'why do we want the hill fingering ansar al sharia"
"could be abused by members to beat the state dept for not paying attention to warnings"
"will come back to us at podium"
victoria nuland, foggy bottom's equivalent of jay carney, hillary clinton's press spokesperson (what do you think is her exact expertise): "after conversation with [name redacted] serious concerns"
nuland: changes so far "didn't resolve all my issues or those of my building leadership"
nuland referred to "offline communications"
"john brennan will have edits"
"talk to tommy, we can have edits"
"state dept had major reservations with much or most of the document, we revised the document with their concerns in mind"
The Benghazi Emails: Talking Points Changed at State Dept.'s Request - ABC News
USAToday: Benghazi emails unleash flood of new questions
Last edited by The Prof; 05-18-13 at 11:27 AM.
What About the Video? | The Weekly StandardDespite the centrality of the YouTube video to the administration’s public discussion of Benghazi, it goes virtually unmentioned in the nearly 100 pages of emails between the nation’s top intelligence and Obama administration officials as they reshaped the talking points provided by the CIA. The film trailer is included as part of a list on the first page of the documents and again at the very end, in the subject line about a meeting of high-ranking officials on Saturday morning: “SVTS [Secure Video Teleconferencing System] on Movie Protests/Violence.”
As the top U.S. officials discussed what to include in the talking points that would shape their case to the country on the attacks in Benghazi, the video was absent. Whose idea was it to make it the centerpiece? The Obama administration still has a lot of explaining to do.
language about "spontaneous demonstrations" which turned out not to be true remained, while references to "islamic extremists with ties to al qaeda" subsequently proved accurate were removed
and the video, which became the centerpiece of the entire white house team's explanation (rice, carney, obama, hillary, biden) wasn't even discussed until that completely undocumented, black box of a saturday morning deputies meeting in the white house hosted by ben rhodes brother of the cbs president
who decided to promote the video?
whose narrative is falling apart, again?
LOL!You do realize
The Benghazi revisions, revisited - POLITICO.com
if you linked it would force you to know what you're talking about
This thread and now this push by The Left to counter Benghazi is laughably pathetic. No emails were edited. A summary was given that was consistent with the emails. Somehow this is a massive scandal that has liberals screeching like Harpies, but 4 murdered Americans (including an ambassador) whose deaths could have prevented and the FACT that their grieving families were lied to and misled is "nothing". Americans fighting to protect and save their own (against stand down orders) left to die without any help from the Obama Administration is "not a scandal" to the Obama cultists.
The real question is how do you sleep at night supporting and defending such corruption and dishonesty tererun? Just curious
Liberals - Punish the Successful, Reward the Unsuccessful
Liberals - Tax, Borrow, Spend, and Give Free Stuff
Obama's legacy - National Debt / Credit Downgrade / Obamacare Failure / Economic Failure / Foreign Policy Failure / Liar of the Year Award / The Rise of ISIS
As with repubLies and Oids