Page 11 of 14 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 136

Thread: Benghazi Bombshell: Leaked Emails Were Edited to Make Obama Look Bad [W:58]

  1. #101
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: Benghazi Bombshell: Leaked Emails Were Edited to Make Obama Look Bad [W:58]

    Quote Originally Posted by Gimmesometruth View Post
    Um, dude....I'm trying to tell you, Jonathan Karl was hoodwinked by a GOP source.
    Stephen Hayes wasn't.....and that BBC editor kinda gives you the insight as to the real deal.

  2. #102
    Sage

    ocean515's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Southern California
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,705

    Re: Benghazi Bombshell: Leaked Emails Were Edited to Make Obama Look Bad [W:58]

    Quote Originally Posted by Gimmesometruth View Post
    Um, dude....I'm trying to tell you, Jonathan Karl was hoodwinked by a GOP source.
    Still at it I see.

    Prove the source was from the GOP.

  3. #103
    Sage
    Gimmesometruth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    US Southwest
    Last Seen
    09-13-17 @ 10:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    22,405

    Re: Benghazi Bombshell: Leaked Emails Were Edited to Make Obama Look Bad [W:58]

    Quote Originally Posted by MMC View Post
    Stephen Hayes wasn't.....and that BBC editor kinda gives you the insight as to the real deal.
    It was just ten days ago that Stephen Hayes of The Weekly Standard reported "fresh evidence emerged that senior Obama administration officials knowingly misled the country about what had happened in the days following the assaults" last September on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya.

    Hayes' report was based on email exchanges described in a politicized report issued by House Republicans along with a timeline detailing when the emails were sent and the names of two of the participants provided most likely by Republican sources on Capitol Hill. Jonathan Karl of ABC News would later write a similar piece after receiving summaries of those emails, likely from a similar source. Never mind that this conversation is in itself a sideshow from the real question of the actual mistakes that led to the tragic death of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others in Benghazi as laid out in the Accountability Review Board report. The DC media quickly swarmed into the sort of feeding frenzy phenomenon native to Washington. Finally, after months of fruitless effort to uncover evidence of an attempt by the administration to politicize the Benghazi talking points, the right thought they had proof to justify their conspiracies.

    Fast forward a few days and the email conversations between those editing the talking points are available for public view. And as it turns out the perceptions drawn by Hayes and Karl did not match reality.

    References to Al Qaeda were struck not for political reasons but to avoid interfering with the FBI's investigation into the perpetrators. And references to demonstrations outside the embassy were not added by political officials but in fact by the Central Intelligence Agency, relying on the information it had at the time.

    Now there is no evidence Hayes or Karl knew the full context of the emails and intentionally omitted exculpatory evidence. Instead they reported misleading information likely passed on to them by their sources, most probably Republican staffers on Capitol Hill.

    From the moment Mitt Romney issued his press release attacking President Obama for "sympathize[ing] with those who waged the attacks" while CIA and State Department staff in Benghazi were still in danger, conservatives have attempted to use the terrorist attack in Benghazi for political advantage..

    Nobody would suggest that the Republican committee chairman, most notably House Oversight chair Darrell Issa, are disinterested prosecutors simply seeking the truth. It therefore should be no surprise that information they have been provided would be selectively edited to conform to their ideological crusade.

    Yesterday I pointed out Stephen Hayes' history, which is particularly relevant now that the full emails have emerged.

    It was Hayes who "made a career out of pretending Saddam and Al Qaeda were in league to attack the United States." His assertions in the lead-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq were based on the same shoddy and ideological blindness that exemplified his Benghazi reporting.

    Well after the Defense Intelligence Agency had dismissed the notion that Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden were working together, Hayes claimed in The Weekly Standard that government sources told him that evidence of this partnership was "detailed, conclusive, and corroborated by multiple sources."

    His reporting was ultimately cited by Vice President Dick Cheney as evidence of the linkage between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Ultimately Hayes wrote a book highlighting his false reporting titled The Connection: How Al Qaeda's Collaboration With Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America.

    Writing in the New York Times, Foreign Affairs editor Gideon Rose observed that "Hayes cannot bear to let his pet theory fall by the wayside, whether it is borne out by the facts or not" and compared The Connection to "the Dr. Seuss classic 'McElligot's Pool,' whose youthful protagonist refuses to accept that his favorite fishing hole contains no fish."

    Poor reviews aside, throughout the decade Cheney and Hayes shared a symbiotic relationship. As late as 2005 the reporter was still defending the Vice President's claim that 9-11 hijacker Mohamed Atta had met with Iraqi intelligence, even though Cheney had continued to make such claims long after such a link had been debunked.

    It was Hayes who worked to smear Joe Wilson, claiming "virtually everything" the former Ambassador reported about a lack of evidence that Iraq has sought uranium from Niger "was false."

    Ultimately Hayes would be rewarded with the access to write a hagiography of the former Vice President.

    With his former benefactor no longer in government, Hayes is now enjoying the help of a new source on Capitol Hill. A willingness to accept half-truths and incomplete information at The Weekly Standard combined with his Fox News perch makes him an ideal vessel to launder lies into the media. That is the role he has served on the Benghazi talking points story. The question is whether the rest of the media will catch on.

    Stephen Hayes' Benghazi Reporting Marks A Return To Cherry-Picking Form | Blog | Media Matters for America
    Last edited by Gimmesometruth; 05-17-13 at 06:27 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by trouble13 View Post
    If you wanna know why Trumpsters are ignoring you its for the same reason you ignored the KKKs complaints about Obama.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moderate Right View Post
    When it comes down to it, all facts are cherry picked.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    He didn't say it didn't make sense. He said it is complete nonsense.

  4. #104
    cookies crumble
    ARealConservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    04-21-17 @ 09:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    14,518

    Re: Benghazi Bombshell: Leaked Emails Were Edited to Make Obama Look Bad [W:58]

    Quote Originally Posted by Gimmesometruth View Post
    Achem.....um...that is not what was written in the original email, that is from an altered email.
    during the election, many of us thought this all stunk.. All we wanted was for an investigation. given the timing, I knew it wouldn't happen.

    the election is long over. Any concerns of timing ended with the election. now I notice the same people that fought every turn to look deeper at this issue are quickly latching on to the altered email meme.

    I really think you should cool your jets. I don't know exactly how this will turn out and neither do you. you look ridiculous jumping so soon on this being the obvious truth when you never wanted to dig into the issue in the first place.

  5. #105
    Sage
    Gimmesometruth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    US Southwest
    Last Seen
    09-13-17 @ 10:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    22,405

    Re: Benghazi Bombshell: Leaked Emails Were Edited to Make Obama Look Bad [W:58]

    Quote Originally Posted by ocean515 View Post
    Still at it I see.

    Prove the source was from the GOP.
    Ask Karl or Hayes.
    Quote Originally Posted by trouble13 View Post
    If you wanna know why Trumpsters are ignoring you its for the same reason you ignored the KKKs complaints about Obama.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moderate Right View Post
    When it comes down to it, all facts are cherry picked.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    He didn't say it didn't make sense. He said it is complete nonsense.

  6. #106
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: Benghazi Bombshell: Leaked Emails Were Edited to Make Obama Look Bad [W:58]

    Quote Originally Posted by Gimmesometruth View Post
    It was just ten days ago that Stephen Hayes of The Weekly Standard reported "fresh evidence emerged that senior Obama administration officials knowingly misled the country about what had happened in the days following the assaults" last September on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya.

    Hayes' report was based on email exchanges described in a politicized report issued by House Republicans along with a timeline detailing when the emails were sent and the names of two of the participants provided most likely by Republican sources on Capitol Hill. Jonathan Karl of ABC News would later write a similar piece after receiving summaries of those emails, likely from a similar source. Never mind that this conversation is in itself a sideshow from the real question of the actual mistakes that led to the tragic death of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others in Benghazi as laid out in the Accountability Review Board report. The DC media quickly swarmed into the sort of feeding frenzy phenomenon native to Washington. Finally, after months of fruitless effort to uncover evidence of an attempt by the administration to politicize the Benghazi talking points, the right thought they had proof to justify their conspiracies.

    Fast forward a few days and the email conversations between those editing the talking points are available for public view. And as it turns out the perceptions drawn by Hayes and Karl did not match reality.

    References to Al Qaeda were struck not for political reasons but to avoid interfering with the FBI's investigation into the perpetrators. And references to demonstrations outside the embassy were not added by political officials but in fact by the Central Intelligence Agency, relying on the information it had at the time.

    Now there is no evidence Hayes or Karl knew the full context of the emails and intentionally omitted exculpatory evidence. Instead they reported misleading information likely passed on to them by their sources, most probably Republican staffers on Capitol Hill.

    From the moment Mitt Romney issued his press release attacking President Obama for "sympathize[ing] with those who waged the attacks" while CIA and State Department staff in Benghazi were still in danger, conservatives have attempted to use the terrorist attack in Benghazi for political advantage..

    Nobody would suggest that the Republican committee chairman, most notably House Oversight chair Darrell Issa, are disinterested prosecutors simply seeking the truth. It therefore should be no surprise that information they have been provided would be selectively edited to conform to their ideological crusade.

    Yesterday I pointed out Stephen Hayes' history, which is particularly relevant now that the full emails have emerged.

    It was Hayes who "made a career out of pretending Saddam and Al Qaeda were in league to attack the United States." His assertions in the lead-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq were based on the same shoddy and ideological blindness that exemplified his Benghazi reporting.

    Well after the Defense Intelligence Agency had dismissed the notion that Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden were working together, Hayes claimed in The Weekly Standard that government sources told him that evidence of this partnership was "detailed, conclusive, and corroborated by multiple sources."

    His reporting was ultimately cited by Vice President Dick Cheney as evidence of the linkage between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Ultimately Hayes wrote a book highlighting his false reporting titled The Connection: How Al Qaeda's Collaboration With Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America.

    Writing in the New York Times, Foreign Affairs editor Gideon Rose observed that "Hayes cannot bear to let his pet theory fall by the wayside, whether it is borne out by the facts or not" and compared The Connection to "the Dr. Seuss classic 'McElligot's Pool,' whose youthful protagonist refuses to accept that his favorite fishing hole contains no fish."

    Poor reviews aside, throughout the decade Cheney and Hayes shared a symbiotic relationship. As late as 2005 the reporter was still defending the Vice President's claim that 9-11 hijacker Mohamed Atta had met with Iraqi intelligence, even though Cheney had continued to make such claims long after such a link had been debunked.

    It was Hayes who worked to smear Joe Wilson, claiming "virtually everything" the former Ambassador reported about a lack of evidence that Iraq has sought uranium from Niger "was false."

    Ultimately Hayes would be rewarded with the access to write a hagiography of the former Vice President.

    With his former benefactor no longer in government, Hayes is now enjoying the help of a new source on Capitol Hill. A willingness to accept half-truths and incomplete information at The Weekly Standard combined with his Fox News perch makes him an ideal vessel to launder lies into the media. That is the role he has served on the Benghazi talking points story. The question is whether the rest of the media will catch on.

    Stephen Hayes' Benghazi Reporting Marks A Return To Cherry-Picking Form | Blog | Media Matters for America
    This is who also picked it up.....and is saying that Media Matters, Think Progress, and the Editors of the NY Times, Can spin all they want.



    Looks Like they will be doing quite a bit of-rewriting. Now that the Rest of MSMedia isn't accepting their Spin. Nuland will end up taking the fall, hoping it wont get to Mills or Clinton.

  7. #107
    Sage

    ocean515's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Southern California
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,705

    Re: Benghazi Bombshell: Leaked Emails Were Edited to Make Obama Look Bad [W:58]

    Quote Originally Posted by Gimmesometruth View Post
    Ask Karl or Hayes.
    Well, I asked you.

    So?

  8. #108
    Sage
    Gimmesometruth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    US Southwest
    Last Seen
    09-13-17 @ 10:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    22,405

    Re: Benghazi Bombshell: Leaked Emails Were Edited to Make Obama Look Bad [W:58]

    Quote Originally Posted by MMC View Post
    This is who also picked it up.....and is saying that Media Matters, Think Progress, and the Editors of the NY Times, Can spin all they want.



    Looks Like they will be doing quite a bit of-rewriting. Now that the Rest of MSMedia isn't accepting their Spin. Nuland will end up taking the fall, hoping it wont get to Mills or Clinton.
    LOL...."Accuracy in Media" is a RW source..



    Accuracy In Media (AIM) is an American, non-profit news media watchdog founded in 1969 by economist and die-hard anti-communist [1] Reed Irvine. AIM describes itself as "a non-profit, grassroots citizens watchdog of the news media that critiques botched and bungled news stories and sets the record straight on important issues that have received slanted coverage." Despite AIM's assertion of political neutrality,[2] it is frequently described by the mainstream media and other media watchdog groups as a conservative organization
    Quote Originally Posted by trouble13 View Post
    If you wanna know why Trumpsters are ignoring you its for the same reason you ignored the KKKs complaints about Obama.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moderate Right View Post
    When it comes down to it, all facts are cherry picked.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    He didn't say it didn't make sense. He said it is complete nonsense.

  9. #109
    Sage
    Gimmesometruth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    US Southwest
    Last Seen
    09-13-17 @ 10:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    22,405

    Re: Benghazi Bombshell: Leaked Emails Were Edited to Make Obama Look Bad [W:58]

    Quote Originally Posted by ocean515 View Post
    Well, I asked you.

    So?
    I don't have access to that kind of "proof" and I doubt anything would satisfy you, but lets try this....why would a Dem Congressperson leak inaccurate info on emails within the admin showing that this was a political decision?

    Let's hear your objectiveness on that.
    Quote Originally Posted by trouble13 View Post
    If you wanna know why Trumpsters are ignoring you its for the same reason you ignored the KKKs complaints about Obama.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moderate Right View Post
    When it comes down to it, all facts are cherry picked.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    He didn't say it didn't make sense. He said it is complete nonsense.

  10. #110
    Sage

    ocean515's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Southern California
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,705

    Re: Benghazi Bombshell: Leaked Emails Were Edited to Make Obama Look Bad [W:58]

    Quote Originally Posted by Gimmesometruth View Post
    I don't have access to that kind of "proof" and I doubt anything would satisfy you, but lets try this....why would a Dem Congressperson leak inaccurate info on emails within the admin showing that this was a political decision?

    Let's hear your objectiveness on that.

    Strange huh? Seems improbable.

    Just as improbable as the GOP leaking altered emails that can be easily checked for accuracy in order to gain political advantage.

Page 11 of 14 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •