• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

MMC said:
Stephen Hayes wasn't.....and that BBC editor kinda gives you the insight as to the real deal. ;)
Click to expand...
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:
Gimmesometruth said:
Achem.....um...that is not what was written in the original email, that is from an altered email.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
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
Click to expand...

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.

aim-logo.gif


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.
 
MMC said:
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.

aim-logo.gif


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.
Click to expand...
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
 
ocean515 said:
Well, I asked you.

So?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
ocean515 said:
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.
Click to expand...
See this is the same argument you made earlier, but there are two reasons a GOP member or staffer would, because they want to damage the POTUS...and because they can remain anon.

It is not improbable at all.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
See this is the same argument you made earlier, but there are two reasons a GOP member or staffer would, because they want to damage the POTUS...and because they can remain anon.

It is not improbable at all.
Click to expand...

Yes it is the same argument, since you seem determined to overlook the rather obvious fact that the emails would be immediately shown to be altered. Why would anyone do that?

Your reasons make no sense at all.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
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
Click to expand...

Yeah Rwing Source with all kinds of References and Sources.....huh? :roll: See that's the main part you lefties always forget. :lamo

Hows CBS then? Is that Left Wing enough for ya,

Rice's widely debunked remarks that cited protests over an anti-Islam video as the cause of the attack fueled the criticism of the administration and later cost her a chance at becoming secretary of state.

According to the 99 pages of emails, then CIA-Director David Petraeus objected to the final talking points because he wanted to see more details revealed to the public.

In the original draft of the talking points, the CIA said the assault may have been "spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate," CBS News chief White House correspondent Major Garrett reports.

But the first version also acknowledged that "Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda participated in the attack" and that there had been "at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi" in the previous six months and that "we cannot rule out that individuals had previously surveilled the U.S. facilities."

Petraeus' deputy, Mike Morell, after a meeting at the White House on Saturday, Sept. 15, scratched out from the CIA's early talking point drafts mentions of al Qaeda, the experience of fighters in Libya, Islamic extremists and a warning to the Cairo embassy on the eve of the attacks of calls for a demonstration and break-in by jihadists.

Benghazi timeline: How the attack unfolded
Timeline: How the probe unfolded

Intelligence officials told CBS News that Morell was worried that naming the terror groups would unnecessarily influence the FBI investigation. The intelligence community also wanted to protect classified information already pointing to possible culprits, Garrett reports.

Petraeus apparently was displeased by the removal of so much of the material his analysts had proposed for release. The talking points were sent to Rice to prepare her for an appearance on news shows on Sunday, Sept. 16, and also to members of the House Intelligence Committee.

"No mention of the cable to Cairo, either?" Petraeus wrote after receiving Morell's edited version, developed after an intense back-and-forth among Obama administration officials. "Frankly, I'd just as soon not use this, then."

The emails were partially blacked out, including removal of names of senders and recipients who are career employees at the CIA and elsewhere.

The intelligence official said Morell was aware of Nuland's objections but did not make the changes under pressure from the State Department but because he independently shared the concerns.

That is contradicted in an email sent to Rice on Sept. 15 at 1:23 p.m. by a member of her staff whose name was blacked out. The email said Morell indicated he would work with Sullivan and Ben Rhodes, the White House deputy national security adviser, to revise the talking points. The intelligence official disputed that assertion and insisted Morell acted alone.

Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, who sits on the Intelligence Committee, said of the emails, "I didn't find anything that looked like a smoking gun in terms of political cooking of the talking points. There is very little input from the White House."

But he said: "There are some things to criticize in here. The State Department looks like it is trying to avoid blame.".....snip~

White House Benghazi email release prompts GOP to demand more - CBS News
 
ocean515 said:
Yes it is the same argument, since you seem determined to overlook the rather obvious fact that the emails would be immediately shown to be altered. Why would anyone do that?
Click to expand...
LOL...you supposedly worked or work in media, and yet you are ignorant of first impressions of big stories? Now that the truth is out on this tale, which do you think is getting more play? Just your denying the validity of the correction shows which has made the bigger impression.

Your reasons make no sense at all.
Click to expand...
Wait, if I argue motivation, but you have no motivating factor....how does yours make sense?

Again, what would be the motivation for a Dem to feed this to Karl, et al?
 
Gimmesometruth said:
LOL...you supposedly worked or work in media, and yet you are ignorant of first impressions of big stories? Now that the truth is out on this tale, which do you think is getting more play? Just your denying the validity of the correction shows which has made the bigger impression.

Wait, if I argue motivation, but you have no motivating factor....how does yours make sense?

Again, what would be the motivation for a Dem to feed this to Karl, et al?
Click to expand...


Never work in or for the media, so not sure where that is coming from.

I think you need to reel in the projection a bit. My comments have only centered on the why alter emails point, and on suggesting a equally valid alternative.
 
ocean515 said:
Never work in or for the media, so not sure where that is coming from.

I think you need to reel in the projection a bit. My comments have only centered on the why alter emails point, and on suggesting a equally valid alternative.
Click to expand...
Fine, you are going to once again discuss what the motivation for a Dem would be, you are not going to flesh out your claim, to give it any rationalization.

Cool, I knew you had zero.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
That is the key sentence, memorize it.
Click to expand...

More obfuscation. The issue is with the State Department and on page 37 of the WH email release Victoria Nuland is quite clear about the political motivation for scrubbing the talking points. She uses "the investigation" as a foil for her agenda but on page 46 of the release it is revealed that the FBI had no objection to the points which, at that point, still included information about CIA warnings, jihadi's and Ansar al-Sharia.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Fine, you are going to once again discuss what the motivation for a Dem would be, you are not going to flesh out your claim, to give it any rationalization.

Cool, I knew you had zero.
Click to expand...

:lamo

I think this "I knew you had zero" bit is hysterical on these threads.

Crawl off your little box, I couldn't care less what you think I had.

You've admitted you can't prove anything, yet hold me to a standard of proof.

Too good.
 
Lutherf said:
More obfuscation. The issue is with the State Department and on page 37 of the WH email release Victoria Nuland is quite clear about the political motivation for scrubbing the talking points. She uses "the investigation" as a foil for her agenda but on page 46 of the release it is revealed that the FBI had no objection to the points which, at that point, still included information about CIA warnings, jihadi's and Ansar al-Sharia.
Click to expand...
And I keep having to remind you that back in November Petraeus testified that the decision was NOT politically motivated.

wash rinse repeat.
 
ocean515 said:
:lamo

I think this "I knew you had zero" bit is hysterical on these threads.

Crawl off your little box, I couldn't care less what you think I had.

You've admitted you can't prove anything, yet hold me to a standard of proof.

Too good.
Click to expand...
I hold you to a "standard of proof"....by asking you to flesh out a plausible motivation that a Dem would have for trying to damage the POTUS....to back your claim that a Dem could do this too?

Wow, this just gets more weird.

EDIT: I mean really...YOU are the one with the theory to uphold....not me.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
That is the key sentence, memorize it.
Click to expand...

But he said: "There are some things to criticize in here. The State Department looks like it is trying to avoid blame.".....snip~

Remember as it goes round and round to show how Hillary Dillary Dock.....got lost in Time and without a Clock.
 
Lutherf said:
More obfuscation. The issue is with the State Department and on page 37 of the WH email release Victoria Nuland is quite clear about the political motivation for scrubbing the talking points. She uses "the investigation" as a foil for her agenda but on page 46 of the release it is revealed that the FBI had no objection to the points which, at that point, still included information about CIA warnings, jihadi's and Ansar al-Sharia.
Click to expand...

Heya Luther :2wave: .....this is what Slate has up.

I was told there was going to be a cover-up. After reading the 100 pages of emails related to the Benghazi media talking points, I’m hard-pressed to find evidence for the most damning accusations against the president and his staff. If they were involved, they were once again leading from behind.

The cover-up story relies on the premise that Obama administration officials pushed the idea of spontaneity in order to obscure the fact that they had missed warnings of planned terrorist attack. It's plausible that someone was pushing that story for parochial reasons in these email exchanges. Perhaps the CIA put that idea in its first assessment and kept it there in every subsequent version to cover for its failure to stay on top of the al-Qaida affiliates in Benghazi, even though there was a CIA outpost there. It's also obvious that the State Department wanted to shift blame away from its failure to protect its people in Benghazi. But there's no evidence in the emails that the idea of spontaneity was initiated by anyone associated with Obama, the White House, or the president's wider political fortunes. Did Obama benefit from the spontaneity narrative? Yes. But to embrace intelligence from your CIA that is favorable to you—when you have no reason to doubt your intelligence service—is not the same as making up a false story. It’s not even a sin.

Next we come to the claim that the president and his team removed the references to al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations as well as references to prior warnings about terrorist activity. If this were the case, you would expect to see some effort by the White House voices in the email traffic toward this goal. It’s not there. The opposite is the case. In the initial round of emails, one CIA official reports that the White House signed off right away on the full initial CIA assessment. "The White House cleared quickly, but State has major concerns," reads an email that a CIA official sent to CIA director David Petraeus. So rather than being the authors of the bowdlerizing effort, the White House was just fine with the fully caffeinated version that mentions Ansar al-Sharia, al-Qaida, and that the CIA had produced numerous warnings about extremists in Benghazi. White House aides reviewed the talking points, made no substantive changes, and moved them along.

When the language does eventually change in the talking points, it is clear that it is at the behest of State Department officials, not anyone in the White House. When Obama’s aides do come on stage, it’s pretty far in the background. One State Department official writes, "Talked to [NSC spokesman] Tommy [Vietor], we can make edits.” This is hardly the vision of a campaign-obsessed Obama operation pushing a storyline. There have been some sloppy Nixon analogies thrown around this week, so let's remind ourselves for a moment of what a real cover-up sounds like. "I don't give a **** what happens,” President Nixon was recorded saying. “I want you all to stonewall it, let them plead the Fifth Amendment, cover up or anything else if it'll save it—save the plan. That's the whole point. … We're going to protect our people, if we can."

Just because there's no real evidence of the grand White House conspiracy doesn't absolve the president of responsibility for the underlying failures and the shoddy efforts to explain the whole affair. From his first remarks in the Rose Garden, to the exchanges in the debates with Mitt Romney, to the present day, the president has been shading and back-dating what he said shortly after the attack to make it seem like he was aware it was a planned attack when at the time he was encouraging the view that it was a spontaneous one. That's spin and it's lame, but it's a present-day failing unconnected with White House actions last fall. So the president and his aides are guilty—guilty of doing a bad and misleading job of explaining why there was no cover-up. But that’s not the smoking gun Republicans set out to find.....snip~
 
Gimmesometruth said:
And I keep having to remind you that back in November Petraeus testified that the decision was NOT politically motivated.

wash rinse repeat.
Click to expand...

Amazing that in the face of evidence....black and white, provided by the White House...you continue to deny.
 
MMC said:
But he said: "There are some things to criticize in here. The State Department looks like it is trying to avoid blame.".....snip~

Remember as it goes round and round to show how Hillary Dillary Dock.....got lost in Time and without a Clock.
Click to expand...
IS it cartoon time?

Your problem is he isn't specifying anything....beyond once again.....that the decision to hold off on naming who might be involved in the attack was not politically motivated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom