Page 27 of 38 FirstFirst ... 17252627282937 ... LastLast
Results 261 to 270 of 378

Thread: Republicans Altered Benghazi Emails, CBS News Report Claims [W:361]

  1. #261
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Last Seen
    09-18-16 @ 03:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    12,029

    re: Republicans Altered Benghazi Emails, CBS News Report Claims [W:361]

    Quote Originally Posted by Dickieboy View Post
    There were other Americans killed in each of these 13 embassy attacks? Further did Bush walk out some cheesy youtube video as the reason for the attacks?
    So all this Sturm und Drang is about a youtube video?

    Thanks for admitting that there's no there there.

  2. #262
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Last Seen
    09-18-16 @ 03:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    12,029

    re: Republicans Altered Benghazi Emails, CBS News Report Claims [W:361]

    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    BOOOOOSH!

    I'm sorry can you point to me where B00000SH blamed the attack on a youtube video and tossed the guy who made the video in jail? Thanks

    Also can you show me where B00000SH lied to the faces of grieving familes and blamed a youtube video for their murders? Thanks

    Can you tell where and what Obama was doing during the 7+ hour attack that happened at 2 separate locations? Thanks

    Secondly, Iraq was a war zone. We still have thousands of armed personal guarding our embassies there. The Embassy in Benghazi was being protected by some rag tag group of Libyans who may have been in on the plot. Repeated requests for additional security in Benghazi was DENIED, even after multiple attacks.

    Ambassador Stevens was the first American Ambassador killed in the line of duty since Iran. Honestly, these laughable left wing B000000SH! articles are pathetic and desperate.

    How do you sleep at night defending and googling left wing websites to excuse the blatant corruption and scandal surrounding Benghazi? How do you sleep at night knowing the President you support KNOWINGLY LIED TO THE FACES OF GRIEVING FAMILIES while they stood next to the coffins of their loved ones?
    Do you really want to talk aboug grieving families in light of Bush's vanity wars in Iraq and Reaghanistan? Really?

  3. #263
    Tavern Bartender
    Pussy Grabbin' Beaver
    Middleground's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Canada's Capital
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    22,455
    Blog Entries
    1

    re: Republicans Altered Benghazi Emails, CBS News Report Claims [W:361]

    Quote Originally Posted by fmw View Post
    No I didn't say that. I don't know if anyone would have been saved or not. I'm bothered that they didn't try. To have tried and failed would have been acceptable. Not to try is not acceptable to me.
    Do you mean they could have been more preventative? Or, after the attack, done something else? Like what for instance?
    “No men are anywhere, and I’m allowed to go in, because I’m the owner of the pageant and therefore I’m inspecting it,” Trump said... “‘Is everyone OK’? You know, they’re standing there with no clothes. ‘Is everybody OK?’ And you see these incredible looking women, and so I sort of get away with things like that.”

  4. #264
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    re: Republicans Altered Benghazi Emails, CBS News Report Claims [W:361]

    Quote Originally Posted by head of joaquin View Post
    So all this Sturm und Drang is about a youtube video?

    Thanks for admitting that there's no there there.
    Of course it's about a youtube video. They don't care about americans dying. If they did, they would have been screaming bloody murder when bush* was president.
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  5. #265
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    07-25-17 @ 12:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    5,878

    re: Republicans Altered Benghazi Emails, CBS News Report Claims [W:361]

    Quote Originally Posted by head of joaquin View Post
    So all this Sturm und Drang is about a youtube video?
    That's what the President said...

    Thanks for admitting that there's no there there.
    Yeah, he said that too...kinda wondering how he (or anyone else in this administration) knows as publically they don't seem to know anything.
    "The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure" - 2006 Senator Obama...leadership failure indeed!

  6. #266
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    07-25-17 @ 12:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    5,878

    re: Republicans Altered Benghazi Emails, CBS News Report Claims [W:361]

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    Of course it's about a youtube video...
    Of course it is...isn't that what the President and Susan Rice said? It would appear they were the ones who didn't care 'about Americans dying' as occurred on their watch...
    "The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure" - 2006 Senator Obama...leadership failure indeed!

  7. #267
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Seen
    10-20-13 @ 04:50 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    3,195

    re: Republicans Altered Benghazi Emails, CBS News Report Claims [W:361]

    Quote Originally Posted by head of joaquin View Post
    B00000SH!
    How do you sleep at night defending a President who knowingly LIED to the faces of grieving families as they stood next to the coffins containing their loved ones? Obama and Hillary told them their family members were murdered because of a video. We now know this was a lie. Obama trotted out Rice on the talk shows to lie. He lied during his speech at the UN 2 weeks later. He called the guy who made some 10 minute youtube trailer a "Shadowy Character" and that man is still sitting in jail as we speak.

    How do you sleep at night excusing and shilling for a lying corrupt politician. I'm not interested in responses where you shriek "B00000SH!" hysterically. I want you to to tell this board why you are defending and excusing a President who knowing lied to the faces of grieving families and told them their loved ones were murdered because of a video.

  8. #268
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    re: Republicans Altered Benghazi Emails, CBS News Report Claims [W:361]

    everyone knows what you're about, barack, your attempts to deceive are the only part of your administration that are indeed transparent

    wapo gives your accusation about doctored emails 3 pinocchios, your attempt pathetic

    It has long been part of the Washington game for officials to discredit a news story by playing up errors in a relatively small part of it. Pfeiffer gives the impression that GOP operatives deliberately tried to “smear the president” with false, doctored e-mails.

    But the reporters involved have indicated they were told by their sources that these were summaries, taken from notes of e-mails that could not be kept. The fact that slightly different versions of the e-mails were reported by different journalists suggests there were different note-takers as well.

    Indeed, Republicans would have been foolish to seriously doctor e-mails that the White House at any moment could have released (and eventually did). Clearly, of course, Republicans would put their own spin on what the e-mails meant, as they did in the House report. Given that the e-mails were almost certain to leak once they were sent to Capitol Hill, it’s a wonder the White House did not proactively release them earlier.

    The burden of proof lies with the accuser. Despite Pfeiffer’s claim of political skullduggery, we see little evidence that much was at play here besides imprecise wordsmithing or editing errors by journalists.
    The White House claim of 'doctored emails...to smear the president' - The Washington Post

    you're pretty much on your own, here, honey

    cuz if wapo's wandered away...

  9. #269
    Sage
    pbrauer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    11-27-15 @ 03:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,394

    re: Republicans Altered Benghazi Emails, CBS News Report Claims [W:361]

    Quote Originally Posted by The Prof View Post
    everyone knows what you're about, barack, your attempts to deceive are the only part of your administration that are indeed transparent

    wapo gives your accusation about doctored emails 3 pinocchios, your attempt pathetic





    The White House claim of 'doctored emails...to smear the president' - The Washington Post

    you're pretty much on your own, here, honey

    cuz if wapo's wandered away...
    Link above
    Garrett’s report appears to quoting Karl’s version of the Rhodes e-mail. But oddly it also seems to be rebuke of reporting by his CBS colleague, Sharyl Attkisson, who published a story on May 10 that initially purported to quote from the e-mails. Yet her Rhodes quote is slightly different: “We don’t want to undermine the investigation...we want to address every department’s equities including the State Department, so we’ll deal with this at the Deputies meeting.” Garrett’s report, however, corrected her version of the Nuland e-mail, not Karl’s.

  10. #270
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    re: Republicans Altered Benghazi Emails, CBS News Report Claims [W:361]

    Under pressure, the White House in March provided the e-mails to Capitol Hill Republicans surrounding the development of its talking points on the Benghazi attack when John Brennan was nominated to be CIA director. The talking points became an issue because they were used by U.N. Ambassador Susan E. Rice on the Sunday public affairs shows the week after the attack. Republicans, however, were not permitted to have copies of e-mails, but could only take notes on them.

    The broad outlines of the mail exchanges were first disclosed in an April 23 report by House Republicans. The report quoted from and summarized various e-mails, but without the names of the senders attached. Far from Pfeiffer’s claim that Republicans “didn’t complain,” the report was highly critical.

    “The Administration’s talking points were developed in an interagency process that focused more on protecting the reputation and credibility of the State Department than on explaining to the American people the facts surrounding the fatal attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities and personnel in Libya,” the report asserted.

    In early May, Stephen Hayes of The Weekly Standard reported more details on the e-mails, in some cases explaining which officials were involved. But a central focus of his article was on the different versions of the talking points that emerged from the interagency process. Hayes, in most cases, summarized the e-mails unless quotes were in the House report.

    Then, on May 10, ABC’s Jonathan Karl reported that there were 12 versions of talking points, under the headline: “Exclusive: Benghazi Talking Points Underwent 12 Revisions, Scrubbed of Terror Reference.” That was the key focus of the online article, as well as Karl’s appearances on the broadcast network that day. Karl, in fact, got all 12 versions of the talking points correct.

    Karl started the article by citing “White House e-mails reviewed by ABC News.”

    Later, he referred to “summaries of White House and State Department e-mails” and then lower in the article quoted from those e-mail summaries directly. As worded, the article gave the impression that these were actual quotes from e-mails.

    In particular, Karl quotes Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes as writing late on the evening of Sept. 14:

    “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. We thus will work through the talking points tomorrow morning at the Deputies Committee meeting.”

    On May 13, CNN obtained the actual e-mail written by Rhodes, which said:

    “We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation….We can take this up tomorrow morning at deputies.”

    Note the correct version is missing a direct reference to the State Department. CNN, which had only obtained the single e-mail, used strong words in its report about its competitor, ABC: “Whoever provided those accounts seemingly invented the notion that Rhodes wanted the concerns of the State Department specifically addressed.”

    When the White House last week released all of its e-mails, it became clear that Rhodes was responding at the tail end of a series of e-mail exchanges that largely discussed the State Department concerns.

    In other words, the summary would have been fairly close if the commas had been removed and replaced with brackets: “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.”

    So is this more a case of some sloppy note-taking and reportorial imprecision? (There were also some discrepancies concerning an e-mail from State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland.) Hayes, on May 14, noted: “Neither of my pieces quoted the Rhodes e-mail. This was no accident. Near-verbatim is not verbatim.”

    Karl over the weekend tweeted, “I sincerely regret the error I made describing an email from Ben Rhodes. I should have stated, as I did elsewhere, the reporting was based on a summary provided by a source. I apologize for my mistake.” He declined to comment further.

    “I didn’t speak to anyone who represented the email summaries as direct quotes,” Hayes said in an e-mail Monday. “I called around on Capitol Hill and elsewhere to follow up on what I thought were interesting footnotes in the House GOP report on Benghazi. Those notes referred to specific emails (and included exact times) and I thought there might be more to learn.”

    Moreover, the full disclosure of e-mails makes it clear that White House officials were concerned about the State Department’s objections.

    Referring to then deputy national security adviser (and now White House chief of staff), White House press officer Tommy Vietor wrote at 6:21 p.m.: “Denis [McDonough] would also like to make sure the highlighted portions are fully coordinated with the State Department in the event they get inquiries.” (He’s referring to sections in the draft that mention Ansar al-Sharia and to prior terror warnings in Benghazi — both of which were removed in the final draft.)

    There is also the comment at 9:14 p.m. by a CIA official: “The State Department had major reservations with much or most of the document. We revised the document with those concerns in mind.”

    White House officials argue that these e-mails show that the White House was coordinating the development of the talking points, favoring no side. Indeed, for all the accusations that the White House deliberately changed the talking points, this e-mail comment from a CIA official would greatly undercut that claim: “The White House cleared quickly, but State has major concerns.”

    White House officials said that Pfeiffer’s claim of “doctored” e-mails is supported by a report on May 16 by CBS’s Major Garrett: “On Friday, Republicans leaked what they said was a quote from Rhodes: ‘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.’ But it turns out that in the actual e-mail, Rhodes did not mention the State Department. It read: ‘We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation.’”

    News anchor Scott Pelley, in introducing Garrett’s report, announced that “it turns out some of the quotes in those e-mails were wrong.”

    Garrett referred a call to Sonya McNair, CBS spokeswoman, who said “Major’s report speaks for itself.”

    Garrett’s report appears to quoting Karl’s version of the Rhodes e-mail. But oddly it also seems to be rebuke of reporting by his CBS colleague, Sharyl Attkisson, who published a story on May 10 that initially purported to quote from the e-mails. Yet her Rhodes quote is slightly different: “We don’t want to undermine the investigation...we want to address every department’s equities including the State Department, so we’ll deal with this at the Deputies meeting.” Garrett’s report, however, corrected her version of the Nuland e-mail, not Karl’s.

    A columnist for Mediaite reported that Attkisson, when she filed her story, warned these e-mails were paraphrased. After Garrett’s report aired, Attkisson reiterated that point in an e-mail to reporters and editors: “The talking point draft emails read to CBS News last Friday were from handwritten notes, and the attorney source explained why they were not direct quotes and could not be represented as such, as I noted at the top of my reporting for important context.”

    Attkisson did not respond to a request for comment. But since then, CBS has updated her original May 10 story with similar language, noting that this paragraph was “included in the original story submission but was omitted from a previous version due to an inadvertent error in the editing process.”

    (In one of those only-in-Washington connections, we need to note that David Rhodes, the president of CBS News, is the brother of Ben Rhodes.)

    While the White House has tried to highlight ABC’s error on the Rhodes e-mail, it is worth noting that it did not play a prominent role in much of the news coverage. (The one exception is Fox News.) After the ABC report, the Rhodes e-mail was not part of the nightly newscasts; neither was it cited in the news reports in The New York Times and The Washington Post. USA Today and The Los Angeles Times mentioned Rhodes, but at the bottom of the story. “Ben Rhodes, a deputy national security advisor at the White House, wrote in a subsequent email that Nuland’s concerns would have to be taken into account,” the Times said.

    The article also said: “White House Press Secretary Jay Carney did not dispute their authenticity during a lengthy explanation Friday afternoon.”

    White House officials disagreed with our findings. “ABC News reported they obtained the e-mails, CNN reported they were doctored, and CBS News reported they were from Republican sources,” said spokesman Eric Schultz.
    wapo factchecker

Page 27 of 38 FirstFirst ... 17252627282937 ... 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
  •