I don't understand america. a previous govt pulls you into a war based on lies and no one really gives a shit. but this incident has got peoples hair on fire? is it all abut cherry picking your indignation? whats it based on.. the actual incident, your opinion of the people involved or your individual politics?
Politics has become a spectator sport here. We root for one side and against the other. I am sometimes guilty of it myself. Beyond that it is a combination of everything you mentioned. People cherry pick their indignation based on who is at fault/who can be blamed. There is an irrational hatred of Obama that has existed since he took office. There was also an irrational hatred of Bush in some circles but it was not on this level.
the hatred for bush was justified. he was given the election by the supreme court so it was never legitimate. plus he lied us into an illegal war. his cronies today are calling the benghazi scandal worse than the iraq war. at least obama won legitimately.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
the hatred for bush was justified. he was given the election by the supreme court so it was never legitimate. plus he lied us into an illegal war. his cronies today are calling the benghazi scandal worse than the iraq war. at least obama won legitimately.
see this is what I don't get... we were told we couldnt wait til the evidence shows up in the form of a mushroom cloud.. we were told Iraq was an imminent danger(to the US cause no one else matters of course, ) those of us who read history and those who pay attention knew that what we were being told was horseshit... we protested we spoke to people we told the powers that be that we didn't believe their lies... and what happened??? we invaded Iraq anyway with a puppet lading the way. I can not fathom, why those that lied and caused the deaths of thousands of Iraqis aren't being held to account. if the roles were reversed the full weight of the international community would come down on whatever country/ies was/were foolish enough to slide that by their people. anyone who says the Benghazi incident is worse that the invasion of a sovereign country under false pretenses is a fool and just lost all respect with me. its not the same.. its not even vaguely similar.
Post edited by catefrances on
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I don't understand america. a previous govt pulls you into a war based on lies and no one really gives a shit. but this incident has got peoples hair on fire? is it all abut cherry picking your indignation? whats it based on.. the actual incident, your opinion of the people involved or your individual politics?
Politics has become a spectator sport here. We root for one side and against the other. I am sometimes guilty of it myself. Beyond that it is a combination of everything you mentioned. People cherry pick their indignation based on who is at fault/who can be blamed. There is an irrational hatred of Obama that has existed since he took office. There was also an irrational hatred of Bush in some circles but it was not on this level.
the hatred for bush was justified. he was given the election by the supreme court so it was never legitimate. plus he lied us into an illegal war. his cronies today are calling the benghazi scandal worse than the iraq war. at least obama won legitimately.
And Bush continues to state he has no regrets about anything..that if he could do it again he would. :fp: :evil: :thumbdown:
2003: San Antonio, Houston, Dallas, Seattle; 2005: Monterrey; 2006: Chicago 1 & 2, Grand Rapids, Cleveland, Detroit; 2008: West Palm Beach, Tampa; 2009: Austin, LA 3 & 4, San Diego; 2010: Kansas City, St. Louis, Columbus, Indianapolis; 2011: PJ20 1 & 2; 2012: Missoula; 2013: Dallas, Oklahoma City, Seattle; 2014: Tulsa; 2016: Columbia, New York City 1 & 2; 2018: London, Seattle 1 & 2; 2021: Ohana; 2022: Oklahoma City
the hatred for bush was justified. he was given the election by the supreme court so it was never legitimate. plus he lied us into an illegal war. his cronies today are calling the benghazi scandal worse than the iraq war. at least obama won legitimately.
And Bush continues to state he has no regrets about anything..that if he could do it again he would. :fp: :evil: :thumbdown:
You could make a case that the hatred for Bush was justified. But despite the acrimony of the election, I don't believe that hate existed from day 1 the way the hate for Obama from the GOP did. Personally I have never hated Bush, but I do think he was under-qualified and over-matched as President.
The emails revealed that then-CIA Director David Petraeus disagreed with the final talking points, despite the White House's insistence that the intelligence agency had final say over the statements.
if obama is responsible for benghazi, then bush is responsible for 9/11/01.
i demand a full congressional investigation into the failures on 9/11/01 and the invasion of IRAQ that occurred afterward, and arrests and trials following those investigations. if heads are gonna roll in the obama administration for benghazi, then bush administration heads need to roll for the bigger crime first.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Generally, once partisan, tendentious sources leak information that turns out to be wrong, nothing’s ever done about it. That’s for many reasons, some good or somewhat understandable, mostly bad. But on CBS Evening News tonight, Major Garrett did something I don’t feel like I’ve seen in a really long time or maybe ever on a network news cast. He basically said straight out: Republicans told us these were the quotes, that wasn’t true. Quick transcript after the jump …
SCOTT PELLEY: Also at his news conference today the president called for tighter security for U.S. diplomatic facilities to prevent an attack like the one in Benghazi, Libya, last year that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. Of course, Benghazi has become a political controversy. Republicans claim that the Administration watered down the facts in talking points that were given to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice for television appearances while Mr. Obama was running for reelection. Republicans on Capitol Hill claim that they had found proof of this in White House e-mails that they leaked to reporters last week. Well, it turns out some of the quotes in those e-mails were wrong. Major Garrett is at the White House for us tonight. Major?
MAJOR GARRETT: Scott, Republicans have claimed that the State Department under Hillary Clinton was trying to protect itself from criticism. The White House released the real e-mails late yesterday and here’s what we found when we compared them to the quotes that had been provided by Republicans. One e-mail was written by Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes. 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, 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 the relevant equities, particularly the investigation.” Republicans also provided what they said was a quote from an e-mail written by State Department Spokesman Victoria Nuland. The Republican version notes Nuland discussing: “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 actual e-mail from Nuland says: the “…penultimate point could be abused by Members to beat the State Department for not paying attention to Agency warnings…” The C.I.A. agreed with the concerns raised by the State Department and revised the talking points to make them less specific than the C.I.A.’s original version, eliminating references to al-Qaeda and affiliates and earlier security warnings. There is no evidence, Scott, the White House orchestrated these changes.
[ed.note: This is a rush transcription so some spelling and capitalization is off.]
if obama is responsible for benghazi, then bush is responsible for 9/11/01.
i demand a full congressional investigation into the failures on 9/11/01 and the invasion of IRAQ that occurred afterward, and arrests and trials following those investigations. if heads are gonna roll in the obama administration for benghazi, then bush administration heads need to roll for the bigger crime first.
I don't think he is responsible for it. But his team is responsible for covering up key facts. That he was unaware is unlikely.
If he was unaware ... that is even worse considering he is our nation's leader.
What did they know and when they did they know it? That question has been posed to the White House a lot this week — but it should also be put to ABC News, which has been caught reporting as fact emails about the Benghazi controversy that, it turns out, were doctored by Republican aides. There’s no indication that ABC and its reporter, Jonathan Karl, knew the emails were manipulated before reporting them, of course. But the network may run into trouble for overplaying its hand in claiming it had “obtained” emails that, we learn today from CBS News, were actually notes taken by GOP aides being briefed on the emails.
That might be less of a problem if the characterization of the emails was accurate. It was not.
Here’s a timeline of ABC’s role in the matter:
Friday, May 10 – Morning: Karl’s explosive report that ABC had “obtained” 12 different versions of the administration’s talking points on the Benghazi attack quickly made the controversy the top news item of the day as every other news organization rushed to aggregate and digest his report (including Salon).
Friday, May 10 – Afternoon: As Karl’s report ricocheted across Washington, Republicans seized on it and the White House launched a counter-offensive, hosting a series of deep background calls with reporters to try to put out the fire. The importance of the report can’t be overstated. As Jonathan Chait wrote, “Karl’s report produced among mainstream and liberal reporters a sense of embarrassment at having dismissed the story as a weird partisan obsession.” The New Yorker’s Alex Koppelman wrote that after dismissing the Benghazi controversy for some time, “now there is something to it.”
Sunday, May 12: The damaging narrative is cemented on the Sunday Morning talk shows, where the Benghazi emails get top billing.
Tuesday, May 14: The story begins to crumble after CNN’s Jake Tapper — ironically a former ABC reporter until recently — obtains one of the full emails in question, showing the version that Karl reported contradicts the original. “Was ABC News used by someone with an ax to grind against the State Department? It looks possible,” Joan Walsh wrote. She would later be proved correct.
Karl responds, but instead of correcting the record and apologizing, doubles down and says he was “quoting verbatim a source who reviewed the original documents and shared detailed notes.”
Wednesday, May 15: After stonewalling, the White House, releases over 100 pages of emails relating to the Benghazi attack, proving the email, as Karl originally reported it, was incorrect. ABC reported White House national security adviser Ben Rhodes seemed to intervene on behalf of the State Department in a turf battle with the CIA. But the original emails revealed he did not mention the State Department at all.
Thursday, May 16: CBS’ Major Garrett confirms speculation that it was Republican congressional aides who edited the emails by fabricating the bit about the State Department and other pieces. As Salon reported last week, some lawmakers and aides saw the emails in March and said nothing. But, as Kevin Drum speculates this morning, “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.”
Karl is a good reporter and it seems highly unlikely that he would have reported information he knew to be false, but ABC clearly got a bit ahead of itself when Karl and other correspondents repeatedly claimed they had “obtained” the emails when they really only saw notes taken by congressional aides in briefings. The Republican aides must have assumed the White House would never call their bluff by releasing the emails.
Karl, who has been criticized in the past for “overly credulous coverage of Republicans,” as Chait notes, has not apologized or formally corrected his error.
Other Benghazi Shoe To Drop…GUNRUNNING – “Devastating to Obama and Hillary”?
…Stevens’ mission in Benghazi, they will say, was to buy back Stinger missiles from al-Qaeda groups issued to them by the State Department, not by the CIA. Such a mission would usually be a CIA effort, but the intelligence agency had opposed the idea because of the high risk involved in arming “insurgents” with powerful weapons that endanger civilian aircraft.
Hillary Clinton still wanted to proceed because, in part, as one of the diplomats said, she wanted “to overthrow Gaddafi on the cheap.”
This left Stevens in the position of having to clean up the scandalous enterprise when it became clear that the “insurgents” actually were al-Qaeda – indeed, in the view of one of the diplomats, the same group that attacked the consulate and ended up killing Stevens.
“We the people are the rightful masters of bothCongress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” Abraham Lincoln
Other Benghazi Shoe To Drop…GUNRUNNING – “Devastating to Obama and Hillary”?
…Stevens’ mission in Benghazi, they will say, was to buy back Stinger missiles from al-Qaeda groups issued to them by the State Department, not by the CIA. Such a mission would usually be a CIA effort, but the intelligence agency had opposed the idea because of the high risk involved in arming “insurgents” with powerful weapons that endanger civilian aircraft.
Hillary Clinton still wanted to proceed because, in part, as one of the diplomats said, she wanted “to overthrow Gaddafi on the cheap.”
This left Stevens in the position of having to clean up the scandalous enterprise when it became clear that the “insurgents” actually were al-Qaeda – indeed, in the view of one of the diplomats, the same group that attacked the consulate and ended up killing Stevens.
Other Benghazi Shoe To Drop…GUNRUNNING – “Devastating to Obama and Hillary”?
…Stevens’ mission in Benghazi, they will say, was to buy back Stinger missiles from al-Qaeda groups issued to them by the State Department, not by the CIA. Such a mission would usually be a CIA effort, but the intelligence agency had opposed the idea because of the high risk involved in arming “insurgents” with powerful weapons that endanger civilian aircraft.
Hillary Clinton still wanted to proceed because, in part, as one of the diplomats said, she wanted “to overthrow Gaddafi on the cheap.”
This left Stevens in the position of having to clean up the scandalous enterprise when it became clear that the “insurgents” actually were al-Qaeda – indeed, in the view of one of the diplomats, the same group that attacked the consulate and ended up killing Stevens.
VISTA, CA—Following the devastating tornado in Oklahoma this week that killed dozens of residents and displaced many more, U.S. congressman Darrell Issa, a representative from California who is currently counting down the seconds until he can bring up Benghazi again, told reporters his thoughts are with the people of Oklahoma. “My sincerest thoughts and prayers go out to everyone affected by this horrible tragedy,” Issa said while trying to determine in his head, to the nearest millisecond, the next possible moment he can get away with once again raising questions about the Obama administration’s handling of the attack in Benghazi. “I am deeply saddened by this tragedy and commend the brave men and women of Oklahoma City for their heroic response to the disaster. The people of California have you in our hearts.” At press time, Issa was wondering if maybe now would be the right time.
Comments
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
see this is what I don't get... we were told we couldnt wait til the evidence shows up in the form of a mushroom cloud.. we were told Iraq was an imminent danger(to the US cause no one else matters of course,
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Good grief.
I thought maybe a few key terms were crossed off. Hell, 70% of the report was crossed off.
:fp:
And Bush continues to state he has no regrets about anything..that if he could do it again he would. :fp: :evil: :thumbdown:
You could make a case that the hatred for Bush was justified. But despite the acrimony of the election, I don't believe that hate existed from day 1 the way the hate for Obama from the GOP did. Personally I have never hated Bush, but I do think he was under-qualified and over-matched as President.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
...
i demand a full congressional investigation into the failures on 9/11/01 and the invasion of IRAQ that occurred afterward, and arrests and trials following those investigations. if heads are gonna roll in the obama administration for benghazi, then bush administration heads need to roll for the bigger crime first.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
http://editors.talkingpointsmemo.com/ar ... y_epic.php
Generally, once partisan, tendentious sources leak information that turns out to be wrong, nothing’s ever done about it. That’s for many reasons, some good or somewhat understandable, mostly bad. But on CBS Evening News tonight, Major Garrett did something I don’t feel like I’ve seen in a really long time or maybe ever on a network news cast. He basically said straight out: Republicans told us these were the quotes, that wasn’t true. Quick transcript after the jump …
SCOTT PELLEY: Also at his news conference today the president called for tighter security for U.S. diplomatic facilities to prevent an attack like the one in Benghazi, Libya, last year that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. Of course, Benghazi has become a political controversy. Republicans claim that the Administration watered down the facts in talking points that were given to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice for television appearances while Mr. Obama was running for reelection. Republicans on Capitol Hill claim that they had found proof of this in White House e-mails that they leaked to reporters last week. Well, it turns out some of the quotes in those e-mails were wrong. Major Garrett is at the White House for us tonight. Major?
MAJOR GARRETT: Scott, Republicans have claimed that the State Department under Hillary Clinton was trying to protect itself from criticism. The White House released the real e-mails late yesterday and here’s what we found when we compared them to the quotes that had been provided by Republicans. One e-mail was written by Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes. 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, 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 the relevant equities, particularly the investigation.” Republicans also provided what they said was a quote from an e-mail written by State Department Spokesman Victoria Nuland. The Republican version notes Nuland discussing: “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 actual e-mail from Nuland says: the “…penultimate point could be abused by Members to beat the State Department for not paying attention to Agency warnings…” The C.I.A. agreed with the concerns raised by the State Department and revised the talking points to make them less specific than the C.I.A.’s original version, eliminating references to al-Qaeda and affiliates and earlier security warnings. There is no evidence, Scott, the White House orchestrated these changes.
[ed.note: This is a rush transcription so some spelling and capitalization is off.]
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
If he was unaware ... that is even worse considering he is our nation's leader.
http://www.salon.com/2013/05/17/abcs_benghazi_problem/
What did they know and when they did they know it? That question has been posed to the White House a lot this week — but it should also be put to ABC News, which has been caught reporting as fact emails about the Benghazi controversy that, it turns out, were doctored by Republican aides. There’s no indication that ABC and its reporter, Jonathan Karl, knew the emails were manipulated before reporting them, of course. But the network may run into trouble for overplaying its hand in claiming it had “obtained” emails that, we learn today from CBS News, were actually notes taken by GOP aides being briefed on the emails.
That might be less of a problem if the characterization of the emails was accurate. It was not.
Here’s a timeline of ABC’s role in the matter:
Friday, May 10 – Morning: Karl’s explosive report that ABC had “obtained” 12 different versions of the administration’s talking points on the Benghazi attack quickly made the controversy the top news item of the day as every other news organization rushed to aggregate and digest his report (including Salon).
Friday, May 10 – Afternoon: As Karl’s report ricocheted across Washington, Republicans seized on it and the White House launched a counter-offensive, hosting a series of deep background calls with reporters to try to put out the fire. The importance of the report can’t be overstated. As Jonathan Chait wrote, “Karl’s report produced among mainstream and liberal reporters a sense of embarrassment at having dismissed the story as a weird partisan obsession.” The New Yorker’s Alex Koppelman wrote that after dismissing the Benghazi controversy for some time, “now there is something to it.”
Sunday, May 12: The damaging narrative is cemented on the Sunday Morning talk shows, where the Benghazi emails get top billing.
Tuesday, May 14: The story begins to crumble after CNN’s Jake Tapper — ironically a former ABC reporter until recently — obtains one of the full emails in question, showing the version that Karl reported contradicts the original. “Was ABC News used by someone with an ax to grind against the State Department? It looks possible,” Joan Walsh wrote. She would later be proved correct.
Karl responds, but instead of correcting the record and apologizing, doubles down and says he was “quoting verbatim a source who reviewed the original documents and shared detailed notes.”
Wednesday, May 15: After stonewalling, the White House, releases over 100 pages of emails relating to the Benghazi attack, proving the email, as Karl originally reported it, was incorrect. ABC reported White House national security adviser Ben Rhodes seemed to intervene on behalf of the State Department in a turf battle with the CIA. But the original emails revealed he did not mention the State Department at all.
Thursday, May 16: CBS’ Major Garrett confirms speculation that it was Republican congressional aides who edited the emails by fabricating the bit about the State Department and other pieces. As Salon reported last week, some lawmakers and aides saw the emails in March and said nothing. But, as Kevin Drum speculates this morning, “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.”
Karl is a good reporter and it seems highly unlikely that he would have reported information he knew to be false, but ABC clearly got a bit ahead of itself when Karl and other correspondents repeatedly claimed they had “obtained” the emails when they really only saw notes taken by congressional aides in briefings. The Republican aides must have assumed the White House would never call their bluff by releasing the emails.
Karl, who has been criticized in the past for “overly credulous coverage of Republicans,” as Chait notes, has not apologized or formally corrected his error.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
…Stevens’ mission in Benghazi, they will say, was to buy back Stinger missiles from al-Qaeda groups issued to them by the State Department, not by the CIA. Such a mission would usually be a CIA effort, but the intelligence agency had opposed the idea because of the high risk involved in arming “insurgents” with powerful weapons that endanger civilian aircraft.
Hillary Clinton still wanted to proceed because, in part, as one of the diplomats said, she wanted “to overthrow Gaddafi on the cheap.”
This left Stevens in the position of having to clean up the scandalous enterprise when it became clear that the “insurgents” actually were al-Qaeda – indeed, in the view of one of the diplomats, the same group that attacked the consulate and ended up killing Stevens.
http://theulstermanreport.com/2013/05/21/boom-other-benghazi-shoe-to-drop-gunrunning-devastating-to-obama-and-hillary/
Usually if a headline ends in a question the answer is no
VISTA, CA—Following the devastating tornado in Oklahoma this week that killed dozens of residents and displaced many more, U.S. congressman Darrell Issa, a representative from California who is currently counting down the seconds until he can bring up Benghazi again, told reporters his thoughts are with the people of Oklahoma. “My sincerest thoughts and prayers go out to everyone affected by this horrible tragedy,” Issa said while trying to determine in his head, to the nearest millisecond, the next possible moment he can get away with once again raising questions about the Obama administration’s handling of the attack in Benghazi. “I am deeply saddened by this tragedy and commend the brave men and women of Oklahoma City for their heroic response to the disaster. The people of California have you in our hearts.” At press time, Issa was wondering if maybe now would be the right time.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/our-thoughts-go-out-to-oklahoma-says-congressman-m,32514/