It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Republicans altered Benghazi emails.

page: 7
20
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 24 2013 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 

Hello "Charles1952",


I would like to get into this thread, but I can no longer tell what it's about.

I can certainly understand your possible confusion.


Perhaps I should ask again when the shooting dies down?

This is ATS, so I CERTAINLY wouldn't wait until "the shooting dies down".

Regarding my part in this "shooting match":
When someone starts taking "pot shots", I DO NOT "duck and cover". I only REACT with overwhelming force.

Regarding the subject of this thread:
Because the title of this thread is "Republicans altered Benghazi emails.", and because I haven't seen any objective evidence to support that argument, I put forth the, largely ignored, assertion that there never were any "altered emails". Because of the objectivity that you often display, I am, most definitely, interested in reading your comments regarding the post that I linked to in my previous sentence.

Most sincerely,
BenReclused
edit on 24-5-2013 by BenReclused because: Typo




posted on May, 24 2013 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by BenReclused
 

Dear BenReclused,

Thank you for your very kind invitation. If it's not imposing, I would like you (and your opponent) to check my understanding of the underlying information.

The e-mails we're talking about were concerned with developing the story (or the talking points, or the spin, whatever) that the Administration wanted to provide to the public about Benghazi.

Approximately 100 pages of such e-mails were released under pressure.

The Republicans received a copy of the e-mails and, in discussing them with reporters, made errors in summarizing two, or possibly more, of the e-mails.

The final story given to the public by the Administration was the result of many significant changes made at the direction of the leadership of the State Department (I take that to mean Hillary.), and by the top security advisors in the White House. (I assume Obama was, at least, consulted over this.)

If all of the above is true, the worst I can say about the Republicans is that they should have been a little more careful, but those kinds of verbal slips happen frequently.

What I'm uncomfortable with is the idea that information was withheld or distorted, apparently to make the White House and State look good and to keep Benghazi out of the election as a significant issue.

I'm worried about what is beginning to look like a broad attempt to control information. In addition to this episode, there is the tapping of reporter's phones and e-mails, their parent's communications, and the IRS pressure on groups with a particular point of view.

All of this does not fit well with an "open and transparent" administration. Trust in the government is eroding, and that could be a significant problem.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Metallicus
reply to post by muse7
 


Muse, this is just another one of your partisan posts. Obama and his administration don't need any help looking bad.


Oh I see.. Yeah it's just another one of
many from a partisan PrObama.

Let's do an rough estimate,

Partisan threads against Obama
5000+
Partisan threads for Obama
About 8



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 02:05 AM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Hi "xuenchen",

I read your response a very short time after you had posted it, and had intended to reply at that time. Unfortunately, I noticed that I had a slight varmint problem that I felt compelled to deal with, in an ASAP fashion. I'm sorry that I took so long.


Interesting posts to say the least !!

Interesting is always a good "thing", so I'll take that as compliment. I certainly DO appreciate that! I sure as Hell don't get many. That's probably why I feel "atta boys" are so damn special.


It seems we are dealing with some deep seeded psychological tactics for sure.

I kind of agree with that, but it seems to ALLUDE (Now... Ain't that a cool word? lol) that there's something sinister involved.

I look at it this way:
Subjective opinions are very difficult to support with objective evidence because, quite often, there is none. Those holding that sort of political opinion are forced to resort to other tactics, when that sort of evidence is requested. I have often become a target for many of those tactics. I love it though! It's great fun being an "Old Troll"!


As for "Factcheck.org", they are a known commie outlet hell bent on doing just the opposite of their name in many cases.

They have professional manipulators that cleverly omit selective "facts" in order to present fiction as fact I think.

I can't deny that! It was obvious to me that their interpretation was flawed. Their version states that the event in Benghazi was a response. The original "Talking Points" didn't even ALLUDE (lol) to a "response"!


Here's some opinions about that outfit

I appreciate the info, but I'm going to pass on the reading:
I have already formed an opinion based, entirely, on their actions. It does, indeed, match yours!

See ya buddy,
Milt



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 02:25 AM
link   
So looking through the thread I must have missed the two sets of emails....can someone post a link?

I will wait......




posted on May, 25 2013 @ 03:12 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 

Hello again "Charles1952",


Thank you for your very kind invitation. If it's not imposing, I would like you (and your opponent) to check my understanding of the underlying information.

You are very welcome, and that's no imposition... AT ALL!

I certainly appreciate the time, effort, and well reasoned thought, that you tend to put into your many well written posts. Quite honestly, I never expect any less from you!

I agree on all points, so there really isn't much for me to say.

Please, feel free to call me Milt in the future.

Thank you very much for your thoughts, and for your consideration!

Most sincerely,
Milt



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 03:25 AM
link   
reply to post by MidnightTide
 


So looking through the thread I must have missed the two sets of emails....can someone post a link?

Are you trying to start trouble? Didn't you see what happened when I asked about the "altered emails"?

Take my word for it: You're "pouring gas on a fire"!

Only TROLLS ask insulting questions such as that...

See ya,
Milt
edit on 25-5-2013 by BenReclused because: Typo



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 04:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


I can't help you.

I know! You can't even understand the first sentence of the "Talking Points" without someone else telling you what it says.



You do realize that the link you provide proves exactly what I and every rational mind understands? Page 4 of your link, the first email from CIA says the it was a result of the protests in Cairo...

I don't feel that imagining, and using, a non existent word to support one's opinion is "rational" in the least. But, I'm not surprised that you do so. It can be very difficult to support a flawed opinion, and I can certainly understand your desperation.

Page four is the original version of the "Talking Points", and the word "RESULT" DOES NOT appear anywhere on that document. Nor are there any words that even allude to that effect!


Crazy posts...to be frank with you. You are screaming the sky is not blue while pointing at a blue sky as evidence of your claim.

You silly thing, you:
It's night time, and you keep claiming to see the Sun!

See ya,
Milt
edit on 25-5-2013 by BenReclused because: Typo



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 06:50 AM
link   


In a bold move that demonstrates his commitment to an inner circle of close advisers — even those caught up in controversies, President Obama plans to nominate Victoria Nuland to assistant secretary for European and Eurasian affairs, the White House said Thursday. Read more: www.washingtontimes.com... Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter




I think this says a lot right here who promotes someone who's involved in a scandal? Unless you're trying to guarantee they keep quiet or there blackmailing you.




top topics



 
20
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join