• 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!

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

The posts you made counter to the argument are BS? Really?

Thank you for this...;)
Why does it make a difference what the talking points were saying less than a week past Sept 11?
 
More evidence emerging that the GOP has edited Benghazi-related emails in order to create a fake scandal against Obama. It looks like the real scandal is going to be the one about GOP operatives engaging in what may have been criminal tampering with evidence. The question is, were Issa, Boehner and the rest personally involved?

Republicans Altered Benghazi Emails, CBS News Report Claims

This reminds of the kid who stabbed his sister and blamed it on an imaginary home invader, just less charming.

Look, the Obama Regime is corrupt and incompetent. I know it, you know it. We might as well get on with assessing the damage. We're going to be at that task for decades.
 
He said quotes provided by Republicans
I don't know if he has proof.
I don''t have proof of anything about this, I think its a bunch of BS.
He doesn’t. The premise of his report is the Jonathan Karl report which states:
This is how I reported the contents of that e-mail, quoting verbatim a source who reviewed the original documents and shared detailed notes:
Exclusive: Benghazi Talking Points Underwent 12 Revisions, Scrubbed of Terror Reference - ABC News

Note the original reporting was based on ‘shared detailed notes’ NOT ACTUAL EMAILS. Now the differences:
Reported:
“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.”

Actual email released by WH:
“Sorry to be late to this discussion. We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation."

The reported version uses ‘all agency equities, including those of the State Department’ instead of ‘all of the relevant equities’. Would you stipulate that the state department is part of ‘relevant equities’? It uses ‘undermine the FBI investigation’ instead of ‘particularly the investigation’. So in effect Karl/GOP operative paraphrased the actual email from notes taken and ‘reporter liberties’ to make the reader understand the message more fully. Karl did err when he claimed to see the ‘actual email’ but in the end the message wasn’t materially different. IMO
 
Last edited:
Why does it make a difference what the talking points were saying less than a week past Sept 11?

It implies coverup. Why has the White House been so reticent to release these emails? There was no there there a week past Sept 11, but later on there was much ambiguity. There is still much data that has yet to be released. Will it change the issue? Who knows.
 
It implies coverup. Why has the White House been so reticent to release these emails? There was no there there a week past Sept 11, but later on there was much ambiguity. There is still much data that has yet to be released. Will it change the issue? Who knows.

So this is all about a "cover-up" for a week if that? Some cover-up. You must think we are ALL idiots to believe that was a serious consideration.
 
It implies coverup. Why has the White House been so reticent to release these emails? There was no there there a week past Sept 11, but later on there was much ambiguity. There is still much data that has yet to be released. Will it change the issue? Who knows.
No matter who made the changes,they were approved by the CIA. And you must remember these are UNCLASSIFIED talking points... that's why the references to al-Qaida were taken out. The US government didn't want to tip off the terrorists.

David Ignatius: Benghazi intelligence revealed - The Washington Post
 
So this is all about a "cover-up" for a week if that? Some cover-up. You must think we are ALL idiots to believe that was a serious consideration.
You know Republicans would ****up a wet dream, don't you? In my opinion they don't give two ****s about those four people we lost, they just want make political hay over their dead bodies. What **** has happen to the GOP?
 
You know Republicans would ****up a wet dream, don't you? In my opinion they don't give two ****s about those four people we lost, they just want make political hay over their dead bodies. What **** has happen to the GOP?

They also want another excuse for being such losers in the election. All of this crap was well known before the polls opened last year and Romney got owned on Benghazi in the last debate. Yet you keep hearing this "we would have won if....." BS.
It is nothing but a circus to distract us from our ever improving economy...that's the REAL "scandal" in Washington. The 2013 deficit is dropping like a stone and the stock market is at record highs. All really bad news for the GOP and they will do anything to distract us from it.
No matter what the Republicans say or do Democrats know how to grow the economy and that is what we need now. We can save those GOP recessions for better times.
 
No matter who made the changes,they were approved by the CIA. And you must remember these are UNCLASSIFIED talking points... that's why the references to al-Qaida were taken out. The US government didn't want to tip off the terrorists.

David Ignatius: Benghazi intelligence revealed - The Washington Post

Ambiguous...the US government didn't want to tip off the terrorist to what they did? Or that we knew they did it? We are at war with al-Qaida why would they think we would NOT suspect them given the region?
 
You know Republicans would ****up a wet dream, don't you? In my opinion they don't give two ****s about those four people we lost, they just want make political hay over their dead bodies. What **** has happen to the GOP?

Sure some are doing it to make hay apparently taking initiative from Rahm (never let a good crisis go to waste'). The same could be said for those who persist in trying GWB over Iraq. Though we admittedly know more about Iraq ~10yrs later than Benghazi 8mo later. As for me I want to know why, who and how. Why couldn't the most powerful country in the world who spends more (~) on defense that the rest of the world combined couldn't do something? Who dropped the ball and what is the accountability actions for him/her? How do we prevent this in the future?

I find it quite incompetent (at whatever level) that we didn't have a group ready to react given the significance of the date AND the apparent early warnings that were given.
 
"We've got no time for excuses?" Nope! Using race to exploit and divide? Never!. Never let an opportunity pass by unused? Seldom! Oh, woe is me! :thumbdown:

Seriously, Pol ...
What kind of person would you have to be to repeatedly say those kinds of self-identifying things and either be so utterly unaware of it... or, far more likely, just completely in deceit mode after many years of practice & experience.
Amazing he's still around 50% approval.
 
Ambiguous...the US government didn't want to tip off the terrorist to what they did? Or that we knew they did it? We are at war with al-Qaida why would they think we would NOT suspect them given the region?

I don't know why, but it worth noting there was a secret CIA operation at Benghazi.

Petraeus Says U.S. Tried to Avoid Tipping Off Terrorists After Libya Attack

Mr. Petraeus and other top C.I.A. officials signed off on the draft and then circulated it to other intelligence agencies, as well as the State Department and National Security Council.

At some point in the process — Mr. Petraeus told lawmakers he was not sure where — objections were raised to naming the groups, and the less specific word “extremists” was substituted.

“The fact is, the reference to Al Qaeda was taken out somewhere along the line by someone outside the intelligence community,” Representative Peter T. King, a New York Republican, said after the House hearing. “We need to find out who did it and why.”

After the hearings on Friday, administration officials disputed the notion that politics or other motives caused the changes.

“The points were not, as has been insinuated by some, edited to minimize the role of extremists, diminish terrorist affiliations, or play down that this was an attack,” said a senior official familiar with the drafting of the talking points. “There were legitimate intelligence and legal issues to consider, as is almost always the case when explaining classified assessments publicly.”

Some intelligence analysts worried, for instance, that identifying the groups could reveal that American spy services were eavesdropping on the militants — a fact most insurgents are already aware of. Justice Department lawyers expressed concern about jeopardizing the F.B.I.’s criminal inquiry in the attacks. Other officials voiced concern that making the names public, at least right away, would create a circular reporting loop and hamper efforts to trail the militants.​
 
Some intelligence analysts worried, for instance, that identifying the groups could reveal that American spy services were eavesdropping on the militants — a fact most insurgents are already aware of. Justice Department lawyers expressed concern about jeopardizing the F.B.I.’s criminal inquiry in the attacks. Other officials voiced concern that making the names public, at least right away, would create a circular reporting loop and hamper efforts to trail the militants.

Thank you for substantiating my point...;)
 
Thank you for substantiating my point...;)
Ah, but it doesn't substantiate you point, the comment you highlighted was an opinion expressed by the writer of the piece, Eric Schmitt.

I also need to remind you that these are UNCLASSIFIED talking points.
 
I don't know why, but it worth noting there was a secret CIA operation at Benghazi.

Petraeus Says U.S. Tried to Avoid Tipping Off Terrorists After Libya Attack

Mr. Petraeus and other top C.I.A. officials signed off on the draft and then circulated it to other intelligence agencies, as well as the State Department and National Security Council.

At some point in the process — Mr. Petraeus told lawmakers he was not sure where — objections were raised to naming the groups, and the less specific word “extremists” was substituted.

“The fact is, the reference to Al Qaeda was taken out somewhere along the line by someone outside the intelligence community,” Representative Peter T. King, a New York Republican, said after the House hearing. “We need to find out who did it and why.”

After the hearings on Friday, administration officials disputed the notion that politics or other motives caused the changes.

“The points were not, as has been insinuated by some, edited to minimize the role of extremists, diminish terrorist affiliations, or play down that this was an attack,” said a senior official familiar with the drafting of the talking points. “There were legitimate intelligence and legal issues to consider, as is almost always the case when explaining classified assessments publicly.”

Some intelligence analysts worried, for instance, that identifying the groups could reveal that American spy services were eavesdropping on the militants — a fact most insurgents are already aware of. Justice Department lawyers expressed concern about jeopardizing the F.B.I.’s criminal inquiry in the attacks. Other officials voiced concern that making the names public, at least right away, would create a circular reporting loop and hamper efforts to trail the militants.​

Watch, now the Tea party occupation forces and Issa will claim that Petraeus was in on the "conspiracy". They are that freaky.
 
Thank you for substantiating my point...;)

Translated: you've been owned but now you're going to pretend you haven't been.

Issa's circus is another bust. How's that Fast and Furious thingie working out for ya?
 
When one reads the WH emails, one should easily come to the conclusion that there is no scandal.

You must have missed it. A U.S. facility was attacked by terrorists and the U.S. government did nothing about it except try to cover it up. That's a scandal in my book.
 
Ah, but it doesn't substantiate you point, the comment you highlighted was an opinion expressed by the writer of the piece, Eric Schmitt.

Ah, so you posted an opinion piece to substantiate a position then negate is veracity thusly. What was the point again?

I also need to remind you that these are UNCLASSIFIED talking points.

Ok, so why was the White House so reticent in releasing them?
 
You must have missed it. A U.S. facility was attacked by terrorists and the U.S. government did nothing about it except try to cover it up. That's a scandal in my book.

There were 13 Benghazis under Bush. Where was your and the right outrage then???
 
More evidence emerging that the GOP has edited Benghazi-related emails in order to create a fake scandal against Obama. It looks like the real scandal is going to be the one about GOP operatives engaging in what may have been criminal tampering with evidence. The question is, were Issa, Boehner and the rest personally involved?

Republicans Altered Benghazi Emails, CBS News Report Claims

So, Huff post you believe...not the testimony of every person actually involved with Benghazi.
 
There were 13 Benghazis under Bush. Where was your and the right outrage then???

The same place it always is when the U.S. is attacked and does nothing about it. Sorry, I'm not a partisan.
 
There were 13 Benghazis under Bush. Where was your and the right outrage then???

13 ambassadors were murdered during the Bush administration? Really? Please substantiate...thx
 
13 ambassadors were murdered during the Bush administration? Really? Please substantiate...thx

this idiot can't be taken seriously. she drives by with the most ridiculous posts, then disappears. see it over and over again.
 
Back
Top Bottom