• Do you have credits to spend? Why not pick up some VOD rentals? Find out how!

Republicans were source of inaccurate Benghazi emails

xfire

@ChrisFreemanX
Republicans source of inaccurate Benghazi emails. Wow. Who could have guessed that?


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/...ans-were-source-of-inaccurate-Benghazi-emails

From a logical standpoint, it was pretty obvious that Republicans were the source of the inaccurate Benghazi talking point emails reported last Friday by ABC News White House correspondent Jon Karl, but when the actual emails surfaced, Karl did not acknowledge who his sources were.

Now, thanks to Major Garrett of CBS News, we have explicit confirmation that Republicans were behind the false leaks. Garrett reports (my emphasis):

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.

Garrett highlights emails by White House Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes and State Department Spokeswoman Victoria Nuland. According to Republicans, the emails showed that the White House had executed a coverup not just of the fact that terrorists had conducted the Benghazi attack, but also that the CIA had warned the State Department that al Qaeda was planning the attack.

The reality is that even if the Republicans transcript of the emails had been accurate, it wouldn't have been a smoking gun to prove their claim that Benghazi is a bona fide scandal. Ironically, now that we know Republicans fabricated the emails, there actually is a scandal worth pursuing: the story of how Republicans dishonestly exploited a national security tragedy to score political points.
 

Jack Davenport

I'm too lazy to set a usertitle.
When I link a story.. I try to use any other source besides newsmax or foxnews. Not because they are more inaccurate than other sources but because I don't want to hear the liberal whining that almost always ensues.

You and most other liberals always are linking nytimes, daily kos mother jones etc and think it is the gospel. There really is no better example of the delusion that exists among liberals.

Ok Republicans provided the emails. Which Republicans? What are their names? I click the link and the first thing I get while trying to read it is a big pop up saying that Michele Bachmann must go. lmao
 

xfire

@ChrisFreemanX
Because it's a new story, I provided the Kos as just a preliminary source. Here's something from Yahoo-

http://news.yahoo.com/lied-abc-news-benghazi-emails-190506030.html

ABC News' Jonathan Karl's revelation of the White House's role in 12 revisions to the Benghazi talking points propelled the story, long percolating in conservative media, into a bona fide scandal. But then CNN's Jake Tapper's revelation of what the emails actually said revealed that to be a fake scandal. So who lied to Karl? While Karl's report implied that he was quoting actual emails between the State Department, the CIA, and the White House, they were actually summaries written by congressional staffers who were allowed to read and take notes on the emails earlier this year. Their notes were not transcripts. The summaries quoted deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes saying "the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department," when he actually wrote, "We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation."

RELATED: Bachmann Gets a Scolding for Huma Abedin Stunt

The Daily Beast's Michael Tomasky wonders whether it's time for Karl to burn his source for lying to him. "Suppose you were a journalist and a source told you someone had committed a felony but that person had not," Tomasky writes "Do you have to protect that source? No." It would not be surprising if Karl does not agree. But we can narrow the mystery a little bit.

RELATED: Libyans Who Helped the U.S. Are Caught In Political Crossfire

Republicans leaked the email summaries, CBS News' Major Garrett reports. Given the way Karl's anonymous source justified the inaccurate summary in a subsequent email, that seems likely. The source said:

"WH reply was after a long chain of email about State Dept concerns. So when WH emailer says, take into account all equities, he is talking about the State equities, since that is what the email chain was about."

Who could that be? On February 15, the general counsel for the national intelligence director's office briefed the Senate Intelligence Committee, leadership, and staff on the emails, according to the Associated Press. On March 19, there was a similar briefing in the House. Karl reports that included the members of the House Intelligence Committee, their staff, and a senior aide to Speaker John Boehner. (Boehner was invited, but sent an aide instead.) That's a lot of people, though a lot less than all Republicans on Capitol Hill. It's 12 senators, plus the staffers who attended the meetings, and 12 representatives, plus Boehner's aide.

RELATED: Obama Allows Holder to Assert Executive Privilege on Fast and Furious

And we can probably narrow the source even further, to just the House. A report by five House Republican committeemen made claims that seem based on the inaccurate summaries of the emails. As The Daily Beast's Eli Lake reported April 23, "to protect the State Department, the Administration deliberately removed references to al-Qaeda-linked groups and previous attacks in Benghazi in the talking points used by Ambassador Rice." (We now know that the CIA's Mike Morrell actually took out those references.)

RELATED: Bachmann's Vision for a New GOP: More Caring, More Benghazi

The report says Rice "was informed that the talking points were created for Congressional members, and modified to protect State Department equities and the FBI investigation." The phrase "State Department equities" is awfully close to the language of the summaries provided to ABC's Jonathan Karl, as well as the justification of the summaries. Only House Intelligence Committee chair Mike Rogers was both on the committee that saw the emails and signed the House report, but obviously the report, and the "equities" line, could be based on the emails of many representatives' staffers.
 

Jack Davenport

I'm too lazy to set a usertitle.
Get some names. A whole lot less "probably" and get back to us.
 

Jack Davenport

I'm too lazy to set a usertitle.
There are a lot more problems for the dems right now than Benghazi.
 

xfire

@ChrisFreemanX
There are a lot more problems for the dems right now than Benghazi.

Where's Darrell Issa calling an investigation to get to the bottom of these fabricated emails? What problems? A manufactured IRS scandal? A perfectly legal Patriot Act "scandal"? Republicans have been pounding Benghazi to death for eight months, what the fuck?
 

Jack Davenport

I'm too lazy to set a usertitle.
Where's Darrell Issa calling an investigation to get to the bottom of these fabricated emails? What problems? A manufactured IRS scandal? A perfectly legal Patriot Act "scandal"? Republicans have been pounding Benghazi to death for eight months, what the fuck?

If memory serves me correctly, there had been a lull in the Benghazi story for at least 4 months. I had actually considered it a non issue because it wasn't being discussed much after about November or December. It has only been in the past month or so that Benghazi once again was in the news. The only time of significance that it was even mentioned during those 4 months was when Hillary Clinton testified and that subsided fairly quick.
 

xfire

@ChrisFreemanX
If memory serves me correctly, there had been a lull in the Benghazi story for at least 4 months. I had actually considered it a non issue because it wasn't being discussed much after about November or December. It has only been in the past month or so that Benghazi once again was in the news. The only time of significance that it was even mentioned during those 4 months was when Hillary Clinton testified and that subsided fairly quick.

Tell that to all my crazy conservative friends and relatives on Facebook that have been reposting Fox News!!11!! Alert!!11!!'s about Benghazi for the last eight months non-stop. This "scandal" never died, but it very well may be the death of the careers of some prominent GOP politicians and their staffers.
 

Jack Davenport

I'm too lazy to set a usertitle.
Tell that to all my crazy conservative friends and relatives on Facebook that have been reposting Fox News!!11!! Alert!!11!!'s about Benghazi for the last eight months non-stop. This "scandal" never died, but it very well may be the death of the careers of some prominent GOP politicians and their staffers.

I haven't watched Fox News in over a year.

As for the staffers and politicians, I know that is what you are hoping for. When it is the GOP it is a "witch hunt" when it is the Democrats it is "searching for the truth"
 

Jack Davenport

I'm too lazy to set a usertitle.
Fabricating evidence in the "search for truth" is a special kind of fucked up.

I'm sorry but it is in my DNA to never discount or confirm anything based upon this little information. I wasn't beating the Benghazi drum then and I am not beating it now.

This is going to take a long time to quell. I am not prepared to form an opinion either way at this time.
 

Mayhem

Banned
There are a lot more problems for the dems right now than Benghazi.

Not really. The IRS thing is isolated and the AP thing has no legs whatsoever. And I think it's becoming clear to everyone who isn't hysterical that if there was anything to pin on the administration concerning Benghazi, there's been more than enough time to uncover it.
 

Jack Davenport

I'm too lazy to set a usertitle.
Iran/Contra was exposed in 1986 and they didn't even have a commission finding or congressional report until late 1987. Yet this is over. ok.
 

Mayhem

Banned
Iran/Contra was exposed in 1986 and they didn't even have a commission finding or congressional report until late 1987. Yet this is over. ok.

Iran/Contra was an entire sequence of events. Benghazi lasted one night.

If you want to make a comparison, try the OJ Simpson trial. Maybe the fucker was guilty as hell, but the prosecution was too lame to make the case. Even that doesn't work because I don't think Obama or Hillary are guilty of anything, but Issa is so busy trying to pin something/anything on them, that the real issues have been swept away. Again, lame.
 

Jack Davenport

I'm too lazy to set a usertitle.
Iran/Contra was an entire sequence of events. Benghazi lasted one night.

If you want to make a comparison, try the OJ Simpson trial. Maybe the fucker was guilty as hell, but the prosecution was too lame to make the case. Even that doesn't work because I don't think Obama or Hillary are guilty of anything, but Issa is so busy trying to pin something/anything on them, that the real issues have been swept away. Again, lame.

LOL@ SIMPSON TRIAL

I didn't want to do this but I think I will say Watergate instead lol
 
Top