• 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]

pbrauer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2010
Messages
25,394
Reaction score
7,208
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Turns out the press got played again by Republicans. Jake Tapper has the smoking gun of the original email from the Obama administration which differs significantly from the “leaked emails” ABC ran with.

In an exclusive for CNN, Tapper reveals that CNN has the original email sent by a top Obama aide, regarding the administration’s reaction to the Benghazi attacks. Tapper reported, “The actual email differs from how sources characterized it to two different media organizations.”

“The actual email from then-Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes appears to show thath womever (sic) leaked it did so in a way that made it appear that the White House primarily concerned with the State Department’s desire to remove references and warnings about specific terrorist groups so as to not bring criticism to the department,” Tapper concludes (my bold).

The email was sent on Friday, September 14, 2012, at 9:34 p.m. and was obtained by CNN from a U.S. government source. Ironically, the email points out that there is a “ton of wrong information” coming from Congress and people who are not particularly informed (waving hello to Congressional Republicans and Mitt Romney):

“There is a ton of wrong information getting out into the public domain from Congress and people who are not particularly informed. Insofar as we have firmed up assessments that don’t compromise intel or the investigation, we need to have the capability to correct the record, as there are significant policy and messaging ramifications that would flow from a hardened mis-impression.

“We can take this up tomorrow morning at deputies.”

Read the full email here.

Tapper notes how ABC and the Weekly Standard covered the leaked emails, which were “paraphrased” “inaccurately” and “inventing the notion” that the White House tried to protect the State Department:

Whoever provided those quotes and paraphrases did so inaccurately, seemingly inventing the notion that Rhodes wanted the concerns of the State Department specifically addressed. Nuland, particularly, had expressed a desire to remove mentions of specific terrorist groups and CIA warnings about the increasingly dangerous assignment. Rhodes put no emphasis at all in his email on the State Department’s concerns.

Previous reporting also misquoted Rhodes as saying the group would work through the talking points at the deputies meeting on Saturday, September 15, when the talking points to Congress were finalized. While the previously written subject line of the email mentions talking points, Rhodes only addresses misinformation in a general sense.​

Tapper condemned the leaker as having the agenda to make the White House look like they were protecting the State Department.

Benghazi Bombshell: Leaked Emails Were Edited to Make Obama Look Bad
 
This is your killer comeback? :lol:
 
1 down, 11 to go.
 
That's funny this one that was given to the OverSight Committee doesn't mention anything about Obama or making Obama look bad.....but it was released to show that Security had been asked for repeatedly even up to the day of the attack.

nordstrom-to-jim-bacigalupo.png


This question must be answered, along with a reason "why Hillary Clinton & the State Department denied over 100 requests for security enhancements & fortifications despite over 230 violent attacks in Libya for the year leading up to 9/11?"

"You want to know what bothered me so much about being assigned in Libya? It's not the hardships, it's not the gunfire, it's not the threats. It's dealing & fighting against the people, the programs & the personnel who were supposed to be supporting me. And I added to it by saying, 'Jim (Bacigalupo) for me, it's as if the Taliban is on the inside of the building."

Listen to Chris Stevens below regarding the lack of security in Libya and existing vacuum, from which terrorists such as Ansar al Sharia and Al Qaeda were allowed to organize & attack our mission. And not only did so unimpeded, but with US aid. It has been a full year since Stevens had traveled to Benghazi in November 2011, and he issued an urgent security request on September 1st, 2012 to no avail by those he reported to in the State Department.

And though Stevens never wavered in his duty to our nation & her people, the support for him & his mission certainly did waver, as Eric Nordstrom and Lt. Col. Wood testified about under oath.....snip~

U.S. State Dept FUNDED & TRAINED Benghazi Terrorist, Ansar al Sharia
 
Hillary versus Obama, no matter who loses, America wins.
 
Do you think the Lt Col Understands about Stand Down Orders? Especially for orders from higher command. Any reason why the Col would sacrifice his Military Career just to make Obama look bad? Do you think after he has gone thru the Military Protocols that he will be coming out as a Whistle-Blower. Once they get past what Team Obama terms Classified Information?

Note-2-in-Benghazi-guard-caught-taking-pictures-car-322-300x243.png


Lt. Col Wood was the commander in charge of the American security teams in Libya & he testified:


“I feel duty bound to come forward in order to inform and provide a portion of ground truth information. I feel a sense of honor for those individuals who have died in the service of their country.

I realize much of my work in Libya was entangled in sensitive government work... The killing of a US Ambassador is a rare and extraordinary thing and requires our attention as a people.

As a citizen I made the determination that this outweighs all other interests and will risk whatever circumstances may result from my testimony.”

The two would go onto expose a shocking revelation.

The United States of America not only denied additional security to directly protect Ambassador Stevens (a Marine Security Detachment - MSD - is typically assigned to every Ambassador stationed abroad), but taxpayers also paid (or 'back-filled' per Lamb's testimony) Ansar al Sharia and relied on US Special Forces to train them.....snip~

U.S. State Dept FUNDED & TRAINED Benghazi Terrorist, Ansar al Sharia
 
Turns out the press got played again by Republicans. Jake Tapper has the smoking gun of the original email from the Obama administration which differs significantly from the “leaked emails” ABC ran with.

In an exclusive for CNN, Tapper reveals that CNN has the original email sent by a top Obama aide, regarding the administration’s reaction to the Benghazi attacks. Tapper reported, “The actual email differs from how sources characterized it to two different media organizations.”

“The actual email from then-Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes appears to show thath womever (sic) leaked it did so in a way that made it appear that the White House primarily concerned with the State Department’s desire to remove references and warnings about specific terrorist groups so as to not bring criticism to the department,” Tapper concludes (my bold).

The email was sent on Friday, September 14, 2012, at 9:34 p.m. and was obtained by CNN from a U.S. government source. Ironically, the email points out that there is a “ton of wrong information” coming from Congress and people who are not particularly informed (waving hello to Congressional Republicans and Mitt Romney):

“There is a ton of wrong information getting out into the public domain from Congress and people who are not particularly informed. Insofar as we have firmed up assessments that don’t compromise intel or the investigation, we need to have the capability to correct the record, as there are significant policy and messaging ramifications that would flow from a hardened mis-impression.

“We can take this up tomorrow morning at deputies.”

Read the full email here.

Tapper notes how ABC and the Weekly Standard covered the leaked emails, which were “paraphrased” “inaccurately” and “inventing the notion” that the White House tried to protect the State Department:

Whoever provided those quotes and paraphrases did so inaccurately, seemingly inventing the notion that Rhodes wanted the concerns of the State Department specifically addressed. Nuland, particularly, had expressed a desire to remove mentions of specific terrorist groups and CIA warnings about the increasingly dangerous assignment. Rhodes put no emphasis at all in his email on the State Department’s concerns.

Previous reporting also misquoted Rhodes as saying the group would work through the talking points at the deputies meeting on Saturday, September 15, when the talking points to Congress were finalized. While the previously written subject line of the email mentions talking points, Rhodes only addresses misinformation in a general sense.​

Tapper condemned the leaker as having the agenda to make the White House look like they were protecting the State Department.

Benghazi Bombshell: Leaked Emails Were Edited to Make Obama Look Bad

What was in that big big gray section ?
 
What was in that big big gray section ?

Heya Bubba. :2wave: What do you think Nordstroms report says there? What do you think about them not being able to operate for 10 days or more?
 
Turns out the press got played again by Republicans. Jake Tapper has the smoking gun of the original email from the Obama administration which differs significantly from the “leaked emails” ABC ran with.

In an exclusive for CNN, Tapper reveals that CNN has the original email sent by a top Obama aide, regarding the administration’s reaction to the Benghazi attacks. Tapper reported, “The actual email differs from how sources characterized it to two different media organizations.”

“The actual email from then-Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes appears to show thath womever (sic) leaked it did so in a way that made it appear that the White House primarily concerned with the State Department’s desire to remove references and warnings about specific terrorist groups so as to not bring criticism to the department,” Tapper concludes (my bold).

The email was sent on Friday, September 14, 2012, at 9:34 p.m. and was obtained by CNN from a U.S. government source. Ironically, the email points out that there is a “ton of wrong information” coming from Congress and people who are not particularly informed (waving hello to Congressional Republicans and Mitt Romney):

“There is a ton of wrong information getting out into the public domain from Congress and people who are not particularly informed. Insofar as we have firmed up assessments that don’t compromise intel or the investigation, we need to have the capability to correct the record, as there are significant policy and messaging ramifications that would flow from a hardened mis-impression.

“We can take this up tomorrow morning at deputies.”

Read the full email here.

Tapper notes how ABC and the Weekly Standard covered the leaked emails, which were “paraphrased” “inaccurately” and “inventing the notion” that the White House tried to protect the State Department:
Whoever provided those quotes and paraphrases did so inaccurately, seemingly inventing the notion that Rhodes wanted the concerns of the State Department specifically addressed. Nuland, particularly, had expressed a desire to remove mentions of specific terrorist groups and CIA warnings about the increasingly dangerous assignment. Rhodes put no emphasis at all in his email on the State Department’s concerns.

Previous reporting also misquoted Rhodes as saying the group would work through the talking points at the deputies meeting on Saturday, September 15, when the talking points to Congress were finalized. While the previously written subject line of the email mentions talking points, Rhodes only addresses misinformation in a general sense.​

Tapper condemned the leaker as having the agenda to make the White House look like they were protecting the State Department.

Benghazi Bombshell: Leaked Emails Were Edited to Make Obama Look Bad

Ah looky, the "conspiracy" to make Obama "look bad" just keeps growing despite all the damming facts that are coming down like an avalanche on his administration. This op/ed says so! :roll:
kool-aid1.jpg
 
Heya Bubba. :2wave: What do you think Nordstroms report says there? What do you think about them not being able to operate for 10 days or more?

the poster got his big scoop from what looks like the nuttiest lefty site I've seen in a while. But given that, it bounced to an ABC site that quoted Jonathan Karl where he said ...

The differences in the two versions are being taken by some as evidence that my source sought to intentionally mislead about the extent of State Department involvement in changing the talking points. The version I obtained makes specific reference to the State Department, while the version reported by CNN references only “all of the relevant equities” and does not single out State.

But there’s another important note here that touches on State Department involvement and shows that the portrait remains far from complete. The subject line of the e-mail, according to CNN, was “Re: Revised HPSCI Talking Points for Review.”


Which took the entire puff of air out of the sails ... but it doesn't really matter since only one person and that nutty site thinks it was anything to begin with.
 
Ah looky, the "conspiracy" to make Obama "look bad"just keeps growing despite all the damming facts that are coming down like an avalanche on his administration. This op/ed says so! :roll:
Those damning facts are?
 
the poster got his big scoop from what looks like the nuttiest lefty site I've seen in a while. But given that, it bounced to an ABC site that quoted Jonathan Karl where he said ...

The differences in the two versions are being taken by some as evidence that my source sought to intentionally mislead about the extent of State Department involvement in changing the talking points. The version I obtained makes specific reference to the State Department, while the version reported by CNN references only “all of the relevant equities” and does not single out State.

But there’s another important note here that touches on State Department involvement and shows that the portrait remains far from complete. The subject line of the e-mail, according to CNN, was “Re: Revised HPSCI Talking Points for Review.”


Which took the entire puff of air out of the sails ... but it doesn't really matter since only one person and that nutty site thinks it was anything to begin with.

Yeah, kinda hard for even Media Matters or Think Progress as well to put out some material even before they know what Obama is going to say. Can't be denying before it happens. U knows. :roll:
 
Ben who?
Bottom line is, in spite of all the republicons efforts to discredit and smear Hillary, she is now polling exactly where she was in early March at 52%.
HA!
 
Those damning facts are?
The ones you keep ignoring in dozens of threads day in and day out? The ones you keep sticking your virtual fingers in your virtual ears and saying NANANANANAN I CAN'T HEAR YOU as you stamp your feet about? That would be several hundred post now, but I like how you have no clue about any of it. You could replace Carney with that level of command of material you have spent weeks reading and arguing about, never once meeting a fact you could not dodge duck run dismiss or hide from. But boony for you for finding this latest op/ed addition to the conspiracy to make Obama look bad. As if he needed any help in that department whatsoever.
kool-aid1.jpg
 
So it all comes down to more GOP dirty political tricks. Why am I not surprised.

Sounds like we need to investigate Issa, who appears to have engaged in illegal activities.
 
Ben who?
Bottom line is, in spite of all the republicons efforts to discredit and smear Hillary, she is now polling exactly where she was in early March at 52%.
HA!

What's the polling outfit ... I bet it's Public Pollicy Polling. Is it?
 
Yeah, kinda hard for even Media Matters or Think Progress as well to put out some material even before they know what Obama is going to say. Can't be denying before it happens. U knows. :roll:

Ain't that how it always goes? Amazing.
Like Boxer & Reid tried running that "Republicans cut security spending for Benghazi" line today in order to give the gang something to repeat.
And they do.
 
Ben who?
Bottom line is, in spite of all the republicons efforts to discredit and smear Hillary, she is now polling exactly where she was in early March at 52%.
HA!

Well.....things have changed. It's not Republicans anymore.

Reason: Three reasons Benghazi matters
posted at 4:41 pm on May 10, 2013 by Ed Morrissey


The final talking points eventually given to Rice reflected State’s concerns, but Carney told us that it’s all on the up-and-up because the changes were signed off on by the CIA.

There’s a meatpacking-like quality to all this. You don’t really want to know how your hamburger is processed, do you? The administration’s defense — and it’s looking thinner than ice on a late spring pond — is that government bureaucracy is messy and multi-layered and that’s a big part of why Rice said what she did.

Benghazi occurred seven weeks before election day. The administration’s strategy was simple: Downplay the terror attack, change the narrative, and run out the clock. And that’s what it did.

But now the dam has burst. Carney’s “here at the White House” comment has essentially thrown Clinton under the bus. Republicans, who leaked the edited emails to Karl and Hayes, have succeeded on two fronts: They’ve got the administration on the defensive over Benghazi, and they’ve weakened the Democrat’s most formidable 2016 candidate.

Actually, most of us are more concerned over the fact that this administration manipulated information about a terrorist attack to hide its nature during the election, to their advantage. That’s corruption on a very deep level.....snip~

Reason: Three reasons Benghazi matters « Hot Air

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...reaks-down-benghazi-issue.html#post1061802549
 
The ones you keep ignoring in dozens of threads day in and day out? The ones you keep sticking your virtual fingers in your virtual ears and saying NANANANANAN I CAN'T HEAR YOU as you stamp your feet about? That would be several hundred post now, but I like how you have no clue about any of it. You could replace Carney with that level of command of material you have spent weeks reading and arguing about, never once meeting a fact you could not dodge duck run dismiss or hide from. But boony for you for finding this latest op/ed addition to the conspiracy to make Obama look bad. As if he needed any help in that department whatsoever.
View attachment 67147445

I remember that guy in your avatar. What was his name again? Ross?
 
So it all comes down to more GOP dirty political tricks. Why am I not surprised.

Sounds like we need to investigate Issa, who appears to have engaged in illegal activities.

See ... now you're just going through the motions and it shows.
 
the poster got his big scoop from what looks like the nuttiest lefty site I've seen in a while. But given that, it bounced to an ABC site that quoted Jonathan Karl where he said ...

The differences in the two versions are being taken by some as evidence that my source sought to intentionally mislead about the extent of State Department involvement in changing the talking points. The version I obtained makes specific reference to the State Department, while the version reported by CNN references only “all of the relevant equities” and does not single out State.

But there’s another important note here that touches on State Department involvement and shows that the portrait remains far from complete. The subject line of the e-mail, according to CNN, was “Re: Revised HPSCI Talking Points for Review.”


Which took the entire puff of air out of the sails ... but it doesn't really matter since only one person and that nutty site thinks it was anything to begin with.

ABC News has responded by claiming their original reporting was based on summaries of the emails, not the emails themselves. In a statement to the Washington Post's Erik Wemple, an ABC spokesperson wrote: "Assuming the email cited by Jake Tapper is accurate, it is consistent with the summary quoted by Jon Karl." Karl himself has responded that rather than reviewing the emails themselves, he actually had been "quoting verbatim a source who reviewed the original documents and shared detailed notes." He added that "[t]he source was not permitted to make copies of the original e-mails," suggesting that his original report was based solely on that source's summaries, and denied that the summaries provided an inaccurate take on the original email.


But ABC News and Karl himself have repeatedly suggested he had obtained the actual emails, not summaries of emails from Rhodes and others in the administration.


In the third paragraph of his May 10 ABCNews.com article, Karl reported that "White House emails reviewed by ABC News suggest the edits were made with extensive input from the State Department" (emphasis added). Three paragraphs later, he wrote that "Summaries of White House and State Department emails -- some of which were first published by Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard -- show that the State Department had extensive input into the editing of the talking points" (emphasis added). That was the sole reference to "summaries" in the online article. Instead, he repeatedly produced quotes from what he described as "emails," suggesting that he had personally reviewed the original documents.


Karl and his ABC News colleagues also repeatedly suggested on-air that he had obtained the actual emails.
When ABC News Claimed It Had "Obtained" The Benghazi Emails | Blog | Media Matters for America
 
Back
Top Bottom