• 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

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,311
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
One day after The White House released 100 pages of Benghazi emails, a report has surfaced alleging that Republicans released a set with altered text.CBS News reported Thursday that leaked versions sent out by the GOP last Friday had visible differences than Wednesday's official batch. Two correspondences that were singled out in the report came from National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes and State Department Spokeswoman Victoria Nuland.
The GOP version of Rhodes' comment, according to CBS News: "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."
The White House email: "We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation."
The GOP version of Nuland's comment, according to CBS News: The penultimate point is a paragraph talking about all the previous warnings provided by the Agency (CIA) about al-Qaeda's presence and activities of al-Qaeda."
The White House email: "The penultimate point could be abused by members to beat the State Department for not paying attention to Agency warnings."


Read more @: Republicans Altered Benghazi Emails, CBS News Report Claims

This is just more proof why the American public isnt buying the partisan push by Republicans about this...
 
Last edited:
Yep. And the MSM ran it...what happened to their loyalty?
 
Well if you have memos and emails circulating between 12 different departments, maybe it wasn't the evil GOP who altered them--they just got them from a different source. Perhaps the WH altered theirs--it isn't like they hesitated to edit the talking points to begin with. Nice desperation shot though---I'd stick with blaming it on Bush though.
 
Well if you have memos and emails circulating between 12 different departments, maybe it wasn't the evil GOP who altered them--they just got them from a different source. Perhaps the WH altered theirs--it isn't like they hesitated to edit the talking points to begin with. Nice desperation shot though---I'd stick with blaming it on Bush though.

Yes the White House would self incriminate themselves :roll: Just so happens the Republican version was changed and everyone elses werent :roll:
 
CBS News Report Claims...

A news organization that fabricated the Killian Memo and an Administration that altered intelligence reports and lied to the American public for months.

Great sources Ya' got there....


 
Is that the same CBS news that is ramrodded by the brother of one Obama's staffers?

Credibility check!

Here is Gloria Borgia and CNN with a Credibility Check.....

110908093953-gloria-borger-cnn-new-headshot-left-tease.jpg


Did political spin hide the truth of Benghazi?

Apply that cliché to Benghazi -- and questions about the motive for removing the terror link from talking points about the Libyan attack in the heat of an election. Maybe there's a corollary question that we ought to be asking: In politics, when did spin trump everything, even the truth?

But in the center ring is something that still begs an explanation, despite the president's dismissiveness: How -- and why-- did the account of what happened at Benghazi (i.e. the infamous talking points) go through a dozen iterations, beginning with a fairly detailed description of the potential involvement of al Qaeda that morphed over the course of a day into a simple, gauzy, bland (and false) theory?

Administration officials say, of course, that this is just part of the regular, interagency "process" of consultation that occurs before information is released. In other words, this is the way intelligence always gets scrubbed and vetted.

What's more, the bureaucratic armor was on -- between people at the State Department and the CIA, each trying to make sure their agency wasn't thrown under the bus for the obvious failures in Benghazi.

What we do know is this: In an e-mail, Victoria Nuland, the State Department's spokeswoman at the time, makes the point that a key paragraph in the talking points -- containing context and detail about five other attacks in Benghazi -- "could be abused by members of Congress to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings so why would we feed that either ... "

She's right: Republicans and Mitt Romney would no doubt have accused the administration of not paying enough attention to warning signs. But since it was also the truth -- or an important part of it -- why suppress it?

Then there's the rest of the story, which may even be more dispositive. Although the U.S. ambassador to Libya lost his life, the exact nature of the Benghazi operation is tricky. White House spokesman Jay Carney says the White House changed the wording from "consulate" to "diplomatic facility" to be more accurate. So what does that mean? Thanks to the digging of Glenn Kessler in The Washington Post, it looks very much like the Benghazi consulate "was not a consulate at all but basically a secret CIA operation."

And, as Kessler also points out, the internal Accountability Review Board, in its investigation, tiptoed around the delicate matter: The U.S. Special Mission in Benghazi, it said, "was never a consulate and never formally notified to the Libyan government." In other words, this was a hit on a CIA outpost, resulting in the death of an ambassador who happened to be there at the time.

That helps to explain the pushback from the State Department, which was publicly taking the heat -- and didn't want the CIA-driven talking points to add to the idea that they had failed to protect their own. In addition, State had been pretty mum on the whole picture, and Nuland didn't want the talking points to reflect more than she had been allowed to share publicly, so she naturally objected -- on behalf of her "building's leadership."

The bottom line: That the more complex version of the truth -- previous recent attacks, previous threats linked to al Qaeda, the presence of "Islamic extremists" -- was somehow lost in translation and what emerged instead was something that turned out to be utterly false: a claim that the attack was "spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. embassy in Cairo."

In the end, there are two parts to this Benghazi brouhaha. The president called the controversy a "sideshow," and he's right: Republicans are trying to fund-raise off of this and hurt Hillary Clinton. And maybe the president was goading them, knowing that if they go overboard, the public will turn on them.

But the president's dismissive attitude towards the whole mess willfully neglects the second part of the problem. He says, incredulously, "who executes some sort of coverup or effort to tamp things down for three days? So the whole thing defies logic.".....snip~

Opinion: Did political spin hide the truth of Benghazi? - CNN.com

Borgia is of course correct with her call. Same deal as Peggy Noonan. Gloria also gives us some insight here. Especially over the issue that the Consulate was not in fact a Diplomatic Building. What Borgia is saying between the lines here. Is that CNN already knows about the Two CIA warehouses......connected to this issue. Knows Clinton testified they were concerned about getting Gadhafi's weapons after his fall. Especially the ManPads, that somehow managed to make themselves over to the Syrian Rebels in Syria.

So we also have the Known CIA Annex.....which tells me CNN is onto this. Kinda Brings into perspective the Reason Why Stevens who had not moved prior to not having enough security per Nordstroms Email. Which validated they could not operate for 10 days. Was now in Benghazi and meeting the Turks Envoy out in front of this alleged Consulate.

Also I would note Obama and Erdogan together getting their pics taken. While Turkey allows the Weapons from the Saud and Qataris to get funneled into the Syrian Rebels. Which the CIA was to control who was getting those weapons and to make sure they didn't fall into AQ types. Funny how this resembles Iran Contra.....while the Benghazi Mirrors the Kenyan Embassy attempt.....huh?
 
"So here's what happened. Republicans in Congress saw copies of these emails two months ago and did nothing with them. It was obvious that they showed little more than routine interagency haggling. Then, riding high after last week's Benghazi hearings, someone got the bright idea of leaking two isolated tidbits and mischaracterizing them in an effort to make the State Department look bad. Apparently they figured it was a twofer: they could stick a shiv into the belly of the White House and they could then badger them to release the entire email chain, knowing they never would.

But it was typical GOP overreach. To their surprise, the White House took Republicans up on their demand to make the entire email chain public, thus making it clear to the press that they had been burned. And now reporters are letting us all know who was behind it."

It's Official: Those Bogus Email Leaks Came From Republicans | Mother Jones

Good job repubs you got busted.
 
"So here's what happened. Republicans in Congress saw copies of these emails two months ago and did nothing with them. It was obvious that they showed little more than routine interagency haggling. Then, riding high after last week's Benghazi hearings, someone got the bright idea of leaking two isolated tidbits and mischaracterizing them in an effort to make the State Department look bad. Apparently they figured it was a twofer: they could stick a shiv into the belly of the White House and they could then badger them to release the entire email chain, knowing they never would.

But it was typical GOP overreach. To their surprise, the White House took Republicans up on their demand to make the entire email chain public, thus making it clear to the press that they had been burned. And now reporters are letting us all know who was behind it."

It's Official: Those Bogus Email Leaks Came From Republicans | Mother Jones

Good job repubs you got busted.

What we do know is this: In an e-mail, Victoria Nuland, the State Department's spokeswoman at the time, makes the point that a key paragraph in the talking points -- containing context and detail about five other attacks in Benghazi -- "could be abused by members of Congress to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings so why would we feed that either ... "

That helps to explain the pushback from the State Department, which was publicly taking the heat -- and didn't want the CIA-driven talking points to add to the idea that they had failed to protect their own. In addition, State had been pretty mum on the whole picture, and Nuland didn't want the talking points to reflect more than she had been allowed to share publicly, so she naturally objected -- on behalf of her "building's leadership.".....snip~

Then there was the fact where it all began even before the Republicans even knew. Evidenced by CNN. As well as others. Perhaps Mother Jones should catch up with the facts.
 
What we do know is this: In an e-mail, Victoria Nuland, the State Department's spokeswoman at the time, makes the point that a key paragraph in the talking points -- containing context and detail about five other attacks in Benghazi -- "could be abused by members of Congress to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings so why would we feed that either ... "

That helps to explain the pushback from the State Department, which was publicly taking the heat -- and didn't want the CIA-driven talking points to add to the idea that they had failed to protect their own. In addition, State had been pretty mum on the whole picture, and Nuland didn't want the talking points to reflect more than she had been allowed to share publicly, so she naturally objected -- on behalf of her "building's leadership.".....snip~

Then there was the fact where it all began even before the Republicans even knew. Evidenced by CNN. As well as others. Perhaps Mother Jones should catch up with the facts.

That has nothing to do with this they were given the emails before us they "leaked" them in calling for the White House to release the rest of them and the whole thing. The White House did now the White House is sitting back and laughing their ass' off at those Republicans after they reworded several key elements of them
 
That has nothing to do with this they were given the emails before us they "leaked" them in calling for the White House to release the rest of them and the whole thing. The White House did now the White House is sitting back and laughing their ass' off at those Republicans after they reworded several key elements of them

Again, to bad CNN and all the rest of the MS liberal media says that don't change the fact that they didn't know when Nuland was concerned about her Dept. So your point about Republicans knowing doesn't come into play until after Nuland steps in for her Dept.
 
Again, to bad CNN and all the rest of the MS liberal media says that don't change the fact that they didn't know when Nuland was concerned about her Dept. So your point about Republicans knowing doesn't come into play until after Nuland steps in for her Dept.

How does this not matter? Rewording emails and then releasing them? How is that not a problem that comes into play?
 
How does this not matter? Rewording emails and then releasing them? How is that not a problem that comes into play?

It was shown to ya.....How it began With Nuland even before Republicans were involved in the Process.
 
It was shown to ya.....How it began With Nuland even before Republicans were involved in the Process.

So? It has nothing to do with Republicans changing the wording of the email to further their political cause to make it sound "worse".
 
So? It has nothing to do with Republicans changing the wording of the email to further their political cause to make it sound "worse".

How can the Republicans make it sound worse when the ARB already pointed out how bad the managerial Failures were? Maybe they are playing on what they know is major mistake by this Administration. Although really they don't need to anymore. People are already seeing the incompetence and lack of leadership. Its not like the Democrats don't have emails with talking points changed. To deflect, deny, and dismiss even the most known basic facts.
 
How can the Republicans make it sound worse when the ARB already pointed out how bad the managerial Failures were?
Lets see here:
The GOP version of Rhodes' comment, according to CBS News: "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."

The White House email: "We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation."

The GOP version of Nuland's comment, according to CBS News: The penultimate point is a paragraph talking about all the previous warnings provided by the Agency (CIA) about al-Qaeda's presence and activities of al-Qaeda."

The White House email: "The penultimate point could be abused by members to beat the State Department for not paying attention to Agency warnings."



Maybe they are playing on what they know is major mistake by this Administration. Although really they don't need to anymore. People are already seeing the incompetence and lack of leadership. Its not like the Democrats don't have emails with talking points changed. To deflect, deny, and dismiss even the most known basic facts.
Really they are?

Poll: Voters trust Hillary Clinton more than GOP lawmakers on Benghazi - The Hill's Ballot Box

Not so much.. :no:

Seems like the Republicans are loosing in this fight and are trying to find something and trying their very very hardest but they cant really find much.
333ig5e.png
 
Lets see here:
The GOP version of Rhodes' comment, according to CBS News: "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."

The White House email: "We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation."

The GOP version of Nuland's comment, according to CBS News: The penultimate point is a paragraph talking about all the previous warnings provided by the Agency (CIA) about al-Qaeda's presence and activities of al-Qaeda."

The White House email: "The penultimate point could be abused by members to beat the State Department for not paying attention to Agency warnings."




Really they are?

Poll: Voters trust Hillary Clinton more than GOP lawmakers on Benghazi - The Hill's Ballot Box

Not so much.. :no:

Seems like the Republicans are loosing in this fight and are trying to find something and trying their very very hardest but they cant really find much.
333ig5e.png

Well since you were using Mother Jones.....I will go with this one.


New Benghazi Emails – “Penultimate” Concern was Hiding Warnings from Congress and the People.....

Victoria Nuland clearly states she didn’t want to “arm” congress and the people WITH THE TRUTH… so they LIED. And somehow that is supposed to exonerate the State Department and the Obama administration?

In either an effort to curb the growing scandal or an attempt to keep it going, the White House released 100 more documents related to the Benghazi scandal late Wednesday ( part one (PDF) and part two (PDF))

On their front page, the Huffington Post actually went with the tag-line link “Benghazi Conspiracy Theories Fall Apart “. Their suggestion is that the new documents prove that the White House didn’t lie to keep them from losing the election but rather they lied “for other reasons” and thus, the “conspiracy theorists” are all wrong.

What they really show is the fact that they did lie in order to cover-up the very things I and others have been writing about for a week. They lied to protect themselves and their psyop. They lied about 4 dead Americans. They lied about what they knew and when they knew it. Period. And somehow this is supposed to clear Obama and silence the “conspiracy theorists”?

I for one never said they lied to win the election (my recent articles on this subject are linked to below). As we all know, the elections are rigged and as someone once said, if voting actually worked they would make it illegal.

The main argument being put forward by the apologists today will be that other agencies decided to erase certain aspects of the official story as it was developing for various reasons. Even the Huffington Post’s own article makes that clear… they lied for OTHER REASONS.

Nothing in the emails supports theories that the talking points were changed in order to influence the 2012 election.”

“Separate from Wednesday’s document release, the CIA recently conducted an internal review of how and why the talking points were changed — a move that also came in response to the continuing questions from Congress. That review showed that many changes were made to the original talking points — drafted by a senior officer — over concerns about accuracy, an FBI investigation and other bureaucratic matters. A U.S. intelligence official told The Huffington Post the review was completed “early this year.”"

At the time when they were massaging the message, there was no FBI investigation into the Benghazi attacks, so what FBI investigation did they change the talking points to protect? Well, that FBI investigation would have been the investigation into “Sam Bacile” and the fact that the administration was trying to use the “Innocence of the Muslims” video as the explanation for why it happened and the fact that the film itself was in FBI custody before it was released as a honey-pot trap they created and it had been called the “Innocence of bin Laden”.

Stuck in the new release though are indications that the reasoning behind the lies was political none-the-less while pointing out the main reason they altered the talking points and later the emails themselves:

“The early versions stated that “Islamic extremists with ties to Al Qaeda” participated in the assault and discussed links to militant group Ansar al Sharia — and referenced prior attacks against western targets in Benghazi, as well as intelligence warnings.

State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland complained that she had “serious concerns” about “arming members of Congress” to make assertions the administration was not making. “In same vein, why do we want Hill to be fingering Ansar al Sharia, when we aren’t doing that ourselves until we have investigation results … and the penultimate point could be abused by Members to beat the State Department for not paying attention to Agency warnings so why do we want to feed that either? Concerned …”
Fox News

So according to the new documents, the main reason, the “penultimate point”, was they needed to prevent congress from knowing the State Department had prior “warnings” (multiple) which they had not paid attention to prior to the attack.

That’s their own words. That’s not conspiracy theory, that’s what they are saying… they lied in order to keep congress and the people from knowing the State Department ignored warnings of the attack conducted by one of their own contractors (Ansar al-Sharia) before sending Amb. Stevens to the city.

And somehow this is supposed to make the “conspiracy theorists” look like fools?.....snip~

New Benghazi Emails – “Penultimate” Concern was Hiding Warnings from Congress and the People | American Everyman

Get the point now.....There was no FBI investigation going on at the Time.

"Oh".....which correlates that the Security Chief for the Interior of the Minister in Benghazi had met with State Dept people 48hrs prior to the Attack in Benghazi. Warning them that it was to Dangerous to conduct Business in Benghazi.
 
Last edited:
Well since you were using Mother Jones.....I will go with this one.


New Benghazi Emails – “Penultimate” Concern was Hiding Warnings from Congress and the People.....

Victoria Nuland clearly states she didn’t want to “arm” congress and the people WITH THE TRUTH… so they LIED. And somehow that is supposed to exonerate the State Department and the Obama administration?

In either an effort to curb the growing scandal or an attempt to keep it going, the White House released 100 more documents related to the Benghazi scandal late Wednesday ( part one (PDF) and part two (PDF))

On their front page, the Huffington Post actually went with the tag-line link “Benghazi Conspiracy Theories Fall Apart “. Their suggestion is that the new documents prove that the White House didn’t lie to keep them from losing the election but rather they lied “for other reasons” and thus, the “conspiracy theorists” are all wrong.

What they really show is the fact that they did lie in order to cover-up the very things I and others have been writing about for a week. They lied to protect themselves and their psyop. They lied about 4 dead Americans. They lied about what they knew and when they knew it. Period. And somehow this is supposed to clear Obama and silence the “conspiracy theorists”?

I for one never said they lied to win the election (my recent articles on this subject are linked to below). As we all know, the elections are rigged and as someone once said, if voting actually worked they would make it illegal.

The main argument being put forward by the apologists today will be that other agencies decided to erase certain aspects of the official story as it was developing for various reasons. Even the Huffington Post’s own article makes that clear… they lied for OTHER REASONS.

Nothing in the emails supports theories that the talking points were changed in order to influence the 2012 election.”

“Separate from Wednesday’s document release, the CIA recently conducted an internal review of how and why the talking points were changed — a move that also came in response to the continuing questions from Congress. That review showed that many changes were made to the original talking points — drafted by a senior officer — over concerns about accuracy, an FBI investigation and other bureaucratic matters. A U.S. intelligence official told The Huffington Post the review was completed “early this year.”"

At the time when they were massaging the message, there was no FBI investigation into the Benghazi attacks, so what FBI investigation did they change the talking points to protect? Well, that FBI investigation would have been the investigation into “Sam Bacile” and the fact that the administration was trying to use the “Innocence of the Muslims” video as the explanation for why it happened and the fact that the film itself was in FBI custody before it was released as a honey-pot trap they created and it had been called the “Innocence of bin Laden”.

Stuck in the new release though are indications that the reasoning behind the lies was political none-the-less while pointing out the main reason they altered the talking points and later the emails themselves:

“The early versions stated that “Islamic extremists with ties to Al Qaeda” participated in the assault and discussed links to militant group Ansar al Sharia — and referenced prior attacks against western targets in Benghazi, as well as intelligence warnings.

State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland complained that she had “serious concerns” about “arming members of Congress” to make assertions the administration was not making. “In same vein, why do we want Hill to be fingering Ansar al Sharia, when we aren’t doing that ourselves until we have investigation results … and the penultimate point could be abused by Members to beat the State Department for not paying attention to Agency warnings so why do we want to feed that either? Concerned …”
Fox News

So according to the new documents, the main reason, the “penultimate point”, was they needed to prevent congress from knowing the State Department had prior “warnings” (multiple) which they had not paid attention to prior to the attack.

That’s their own words. That’s not conspiracy theory, that’s what they are saying… they lied in order to keep congress and the people from knowing the State Department ignored warnings of the attack conducted by one of their own contractors (Ansar al-Sharia) before sending Amb. Stevens to the city.

And somehow this is supposed to make the “conspiracy theorists” look like fools?.....snip~

New Benghazi Emails – “Penultimate” Concern was Hiding Warnings from Congress and the People | American Everyman

Get the point now.....There was no FBI investigation going on at the Time.

"Oh".....which correlates that the Security Chief for the Interior of the Minister in Benghazi had met with State Dept people 48hrs prior to the Attack in Benghazi. Warning them that it was to Dangerous to conduct Business in Benghazi.


Again... This is nothing new. What this thread is about is how the Republican party changed wording and phrasing of the document you can keep on beating this thing like no other..
 
Again... This is nothing new. What this thread is about is how the Republican party changed wording and phrasing of the document you can keep on beating this thing like no other..

Right, and I just proved the talking point wasn't accurate. As there was no FBI investigation prior to the attack in Benghazi.
 
Right, and I just proved the talking point wasn't accurate. As there was no FBI investigation prior to the attack in Benghazi.

So basically your having a debate with yourself.
 
Yeah, I guess I am.....when you ignore facts. But then I didn't find this surprising at all.

What facts? No one is debating about your point.
But since you want to start this first off you use a blog that claims the "election was rigged". Then you pretty much bolded everything with the word "lie" in it.
Then pretty much this is what you have;
"“In same vein, why do we want Hill to be fingering Ansar al Sharia, when we aren’t doing that ourselves until we have investigation results … and the penultimate point could be abused by Members to beat the State Department for not paying attention to Agency warnings so why do we want to feed that either? Concerned …”
--They are investigating the findings and the results.

2nd of all this doesnt change any of the facts that Republicans yet again changed the wording of emails for political purposes.
 
Back
Top Bottom