Benghazi Debacle Gets Longer Legs

[unregistered]

 

[mercury14]

PJ Media recognizes this is largely hearsay...

Oh so when it turns out to go nowhere PJ Media will be able to deny responsibility for reporting it. RW media outlets are a bunch of cowardly pussies.

 

[Busybody]

Oh so when it turns out to go nowhere PJ Media will be able to deny responsibility for reporting it. RW media outlets are a bunch of cowardly pussies.

STFU

 

[Busybody]

VETTE, 53% of the country don't care.....they LOVE Obama no matter what!

 

[mercury14]

VETTE, 53% of the country don't care.....they LOVE Obama no matter what!

It doesn't look like America is buying your faux scandals. That must really piss you off.

 

[Busybody]

faux?

so all the stuff is MUCH ADO about NOTHING

right?

 

[mercury14]

faux?

so all the stuff is MUCH ADO about NOTHING

right?

It's about something, just not the ridiculous overreach Republicans are going for that's making them look ridiculous. There are very legitimate conversations that need to be had about all these issues but Republicans refuse to have them.

 

[Busybody]

conversations?


STFU!

 

[mercury14]

conversations?


STFU!

This is exactly what I mean. Republicans don't want to make America better, they just want political gain. They literally want government to be run worse because if government is run decently their narrative blows up in their face.

 

[Busybody]

This is exactly what I mean. Republicans don't want to make America better, they just want political gain. They literally want government to be run worse because if government is run decently their narrative blows up in their face.

jack ass

 

[Busybody]

It doesn't look like America is buying your faux scandals. That must really piss you off.

show me the poll, the question the internals

TIA

 

[unregistered]

 

[zipman]

Oh so when it turns out to go nowhere PJ Media will be able to deny responsibility for reporting it. RW media outlets are a bunch of cowardly pussies.

LOL, wait, so the PJM Exclusive is largely hearsay?

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[Busybody]

LOL, wait, so the PJM Exclusive is largely hearsay?

another asshole

 

[dan_c00000]

Ah I see that your right wing nuts still have no proof. It's funny how little Americans care about this. Yet republitards are doing anything they can to bring it up despite, again, having no proof.

There is proof that the right is lying but that's a given:

President Barack Obama called Thursday 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.



Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes

The Benghazi attack is a political controversy. Republicans claim the administration watered down the facts in talking points given to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice for television appearances while Obama was running for re-election. Republicans on Capitol Hill claimed they found proof in White House emails that they leaked to reporters last week. It turns out some of the quotes were wrong.



Republicans have charged that the State Department under Hillary Clinton was trying to protect itself from criticism. The White House released the real emails late Wednesday. Here's what we found when we compared them to the quotes that had been provided by Republicans.


One email was written by deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes.


White House Benghazi email release prompts GOP to demand more
WH releases emails showing changes to Benghazi talking points
Complete Coverage: U.S. Consulate attack in Benghazi

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."


Victoria Nuland
/ MASSOUD HOSSAINI/AFP/Getty Images
But it turns out that in the actual email, 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."


Republicans also provided what they said was a quote from an email written by State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland.


The Republican version quotes 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."


Below: President Obama calls on Congress to help bolster diplomatic security.


The actual email from Nuland says: "The penultimate point could be abused by members to beat the State Department for not paying attention to Agency warnings."


The CIA agreed with the concerns raised by the State Department and revised the talking points to make them less specific than the CIA's original version, eliminating references to al Qaeda and affiliates and earlier security warnings. There is no evidence that the White House orchestrated the changes.

 

[unregistered]

 

[mercury14]

I guess we'll see who the pussies are won't we?

You already know PJM is a bunch of pussies because they're acting like it with their constant plausible denial disclaimers they hide in their articles. Then if their articles turn out to be donkey poop they just pretend they never wrote them. That way they can be wholly wrong and never have to issue a correction or be accountable for anything they say.

Did you think this was journalism you're reading here?

 

[Busybody]

Dan=Dummy

 

[zipman]

I remember when Watergate was hearsay.

So you're going with the 1% of the time hearsay may be right as opposed to the 99% of the time it isn't?

Your desperation is duly noted.

 

[unregistered]

 

[dan_c00000]

Dan=Dummy

And you're a racist. It looks like your republitard friends are pretty pathetic.




¶First, this White House has no clue how to handle a public relations crisis; it should have released those emails ages ago. Second, the more we learn, the clearer it is that there was no cover-up. Third, the Republicans in Congress don’t care about the truth of the matter. They’re going to keep attacking President Obama (to cause him pain right now), and Hillary Clinton’s State Department (to cause her pain if she runs in 2016).

¶On Wednesday, pretty much every dispassionate news organization reported that the newly released emails do not contain evidence of a scandal. President Obama’s national security team did not try to alter the talking points to shield Mr. Obama’s re-election chances.

As The Times put it, “While the e-mails portrayed White House officials as being sensitive to the concerns of the State Department, they suggest that Mr. Obama’s aides mostly mediated a bureaucratic tug of war between the State Department and the C.I.A. over how much to disclose—all under heavy time constraints because of the demands from Capitol Hill.”

¶Yet Republicans are still claiming that they can see the smoking gun before them.

¶Rep. Peter King, who represents part of Long Island but dwells to the right of South Carolina on most issues, said the emails indicated that the State Department had strong-armed the Central Intelligence Agency into removing references to Al Qaeda, as well as to warnings prior to the attack.

¶Actually, as The Times reported this morning, the emails show that the deputy director of the C.I.A., Michael Morell, “deleted a reference in the draft version of the talking points to C.I.A. warnings of extremist threats in Libya.” The State Department objected to that reference because officials thought it would make them look bad, but there is no record of the C.I.A. pushing back. There was no coercion or force, and no indication that the C.I.A. objected to the early, now much disputed claim that the killings were revenge for an anti-Islam Internet video.

¶The White House has long said that Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations who discussed the anti-Islam video on Sunday talk shows directly after the attack, was just reflecting the administration consensus at that moment. The e-mails, according to The Washington Post story, “appear to support that contention.”

¶Last Friday, Republicans of the Congressional and talking-head varieties could barely contain their glee over an ABC report that Benjamin Rhodes, a deputy national security adviser, had emphasized the need to protect the State Department’s interests. That report was wrong.

¶Mr. Rhodes actually said, “We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant entities, especially the [F.B.I.] investigation.”

¶Perhaps the most iffy email in the batch was from Victoria Nuland, the State Department spokesman. She said that lawmakers could “abuse” the initial talking points to “beat the State Department for not paying attention to agency warnings.” But given Congressional Republicans behavior over the last 4 ½ years, Ms. Nuland’s fear of “abuse” seems, frankly, warranted.

¶Just look at their outlandish claims of an impeachment-level cover up.

¶“If you link Watergate and Iran-Contra together and multiply it times maybe 10 or so, you’re going to get in the zone where Benghazi is,” Rep. Steve King of Iowa said.

 

[unregistered]

 

[mercury14]

Bullshit. Was the Monica Lewinsky Affair "hearsay" when Drudge first broke the story?

What ever happened to your hearsay report of Obama giving blowjobs in the back of a limo? I almost forgot about that, but I seem to remember you wanting an investigation. How did that bit of hearsay pan out? Did your source ever take responsibility for reporting something with no evidence?