Republicans altered Benghazi emails.

reply to post by jimmyx

how many times do the republicans need to cry wolf before people stop believing what they say?

ROFLMAO

It seems that you "cry wolf" quite often, too! When should we stop believing you?

See ya,
Milt

reply to post by dragonridr


So it's like I said, the theory is that ABC lied.

reply to post by Kali74

So it's like I said, the theory is that ABC lied.

It seems that you are, once again, "alluding" that ownership of that "theory" is mine. If so, I'd like to see you show a little honesty, for a change, by supporting YOUR "theory" with a little bit of evidence. Are you capable of that?

See ya,
Milt

does anyone remember this theory ?

it's right up Obama's alley

America watched in disbelief as Barack Obama tried to tell the American people that the attack on the Libyan consulate on September 11 was the result of an amateurish, anti-Muslim video that had been on YouTube for three months with barely three hundred views.

Then suddenly the administration announced that it was, yes, a terrorist attack, but that it was the intelligence community that had fed him bad information, even though we knew our intelligence community had known it was an al-Qaeda-linked attack within twenty four hours.

Why the equivocation? Why the lies?

None of it made sense.

Until now.

source article from Oct 17, 2012 -- Benghazi Attack Was Botched Kidnapping To Trade Blind Sheik

related thread from Oct 17, 2012

Maybe this comes out soon.........

Originally posted by BenReclused
reply to post by Kali74

 

So it's like I said, the theory is that ABC lied.

It seems that you are, once again, "alluding" that ownership of that "theory" is mine. If so, I'd like to see you show a little honesty, for a change, by supporting YOUR "theory" with a little bit of evidence. Are you capable of that?

See ya,
Milt

edit on 19-5-2013 by BenReclused because: Typo

Enough with the nasty and insinuating others are dishonest just because you disagree with them. You are absolutely alluding to that ABC lied. Either that or you're delusional. The evidence is in the story that ABC ran last week that they had been given emails by a source within the House, that were different than the emails the White House submitted to Congress... so either the emails were altered and leaked by someone within the GOP or ABC lied. That's not my theory, it's not a theory at all... it just is.

Originally posted by Kali74

Originally posted by BenReclused
reply to post by Kali74

 

So it's like I said, the theory is that ABC lied.

It seems that you are, once again, "alluding" that ownership of that "theory" is mine. If so, I'd like to see you show a little honesty, for a change, by supporting YOUR "theory" with a little bit of evidence. Are you capable of that?

See ya,
Milt

edit on 19-5-2013 by BenReclused because: Typo

Enough with the nasty and insinuating others are dishonest just because you disagree with them. You are absolutely alluding to that ABC lied. Either that or you're delusional. The evidence is in the story that ABC ran last week that they had been given emails by a source within the House, that were different than the emails the White House submitted to Congress... so either the emails were altered and leaked by someone within the GOP or ABC lied. That's not my theory, it's not a theory at all... it just is.

My question is how do you know it was a member of the GOP in the house? There plenty of democrats pissed off right now as well partly because they feel like they were lied to when the white house and state department briefed them.your making an asumption. Lets look at something for a minute suppose you were a member of the GOP and you were given the white house emails would your first response be to get them to the press? See i figure politics is funny you wouldnt play that card just yet remeber its to the advantage of the GOP to let this play out as long as possible.Im not a republican or democrat so I have nothing at stake here.So this allows me to just look at the situation and boys and girls something isnt right.

Lets look at this logically

Point 1 Why on earth would any republican alter a white house Email knowingthat the president can release them anytime he wants.
Point 2 Why would you leak said information to ABC they are definitely not friendly to the GOP you couldn't even guarantee they wouldn't bury the story
Point 3 If you were going to edit the emails and take that risk then why wouldn't you just make up emails instead of edit them reason being it would be easy to say the white house just didn't include all of them or deleted them really how hard would it be to fake a couple of emails when we have such a large number.
Point 4 Now who has the most to gain by leaking false Emails to the public I don't think it was the GOP do you?
Point 5 Why hasn't ABC outed whoever gave them the emails after all this person made their reporting look shoddy at best at worst a joke.
Point 6 As I said earlier releasing the Emails is not in the GOPs best interest they are looking at mid terms trying to get more seats so to drag this out only helps them ending sure saving that and playing it later would have been a much smarter move.

So i figure this leaves us with a couple of possibilities this was an off the record conversation between a reporter and a member of the GOP meaning emails were done from memory since the gist seems to be the same. Or this was leaked by a democrat motivation unknown. And the 3rd possibility is the Emails were changed knowing the white house could put out the originals and place blame this one is really scary if you think about it. As i said something is wrong unfortunately we wont know what unless we find out who originated the leak.

reply to post by dragonridr


I think the GOP was banking on the emails not being declassified and I think their motivation is pretty blatant... discredit Hillary Clinton for 2016. ABC should absolutely out their source as they are no longer a source but news themselves now and I don't believe in this liberal media bias nonsense one bit except where MSNBC is concerned, I believe there's a narrative chosen by the corporations that own the media. Disney owns ABC and Disney funds a lot of Conservative orgs. despite the fact that they come under heavy criticism by the same.

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by dragonridr

 

I think the GOP was banking on the emails not being declassified and I think their motivation is pretty blatant... discredit Hillary Clinton for 2016. ABC should absolutely out their source as they are no longer a source but news themselves now and I don't believe in this liberal media bias nonsense one bit except where MSNBC is concerned, I believe there's a narrative chosen by the corporations that own the media. Disney owns ABC and Disney funds a lot of Conservative orgs. despite the fact that they come under heavy criticism by the same.

Hillary wASNT THE Target come on she resigned shes going to come out with a story about how she didnt agree with Obama and decided she needed to leave trust me she will hoist the blame on Obama and be fine.However if you told me this was all part of Bills plan to screw Obama now that is a possibility.Trust me when i say Bill Clinton isnt his friend.I assure you with a little spin Hillary will be fine and the minute she resigned every GOP member was denied there sacrificial lamb and they knew it.Dont be niave if this were about Hillary the whirte house would have been happy to let her take the fall.

reply to post by Kali74

Enough with the nasty and insinuating others are dishonest just because you disagree with them.

Disagreeing with me had nothing to do with my "insinuating" that you were dishonest! I did that because of your continuous and deliberate attempts to misconstrue much of what I have said.

You are absolutely alluding to that ABC lied. Either that or you're delusional.

Nope! There is a third, and much more likely, option that you are overlooking: You don't know what you are talking about.

Below is some evidence that supports that assertion.

You said:

The evidence is in the story that ABC ran last week that they had been given emails by a source within the House, that were different than the emails the White House submitted to Congress

This is from an ABC article dated May 10, 2013:

Editor's Note: There were differences between ABC News’ original reporting on an email by Ben Rhodes, below, and the actual wording of that email which have now been corrected. ABC News should have been more precise in its sourcing of those quotes, attributing them to handwritten copies of the emails taken by a Congressional source. We regret that error. The remainder of the report stands as accurate.

That sure as hell doesn't support your claim!

Jonathan Karl, the author of the article sourced above, even confirmed my comments about paraphrasing:

Karl originally wrote that ABC News had "reviewed" the White House's emails, but later said that they were paraphrased from a source who viewed the original emails and shared detailed notes.

so either the emails were altered and leaked by someone within the GOP or ABC lied. That's not my theory, it's not a theory at all... it just is.

It seems that you couldn't be more wrong! What say you?

See ya,
Milt

reply to post by BenReclused


I read that exact article again a few days ago, the editors note wasn't there as of that point. In the video Jonathan Karl even says "he has obtained 12 different versions". Reading it again it's very different than it originally was. Seems like Karl is sticking by his source and sounds more like a FOX news report.

I didn't deliberately misconstrue anything you said, not my style. I simply didn't understand your tantrum in demanding proof when you'd obviously seen the same articles I had.

reply to post by muse7
reply to post by Flatfish
reply to post by Indigo5
reply to post by jimmyx
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by Kali74


Well it looks like a lot of people closed their eyes and followed the first one over the cliff on this one

ABC used the old commie trick of saying something that sounds true and then changing the story later after the intended message was instilled in the minds of the weak.

What are all of your thoughts NOW?

The internet columns are the perfect setting for this type of "reporting".
Editing is easy and you can make your "intentional mistakes" stick better than ever

Looks like they had several minnows on one big hook this time !!

reply to post by xuenchen


What are you talking about?
Jonathan Karl is still carrying water for the GOP on this.

reply to post by Indigo5


Oh, so then it wouldn't be a "claim" then would it.

It would be a fact, and would have presented as that.

reply to post by Kali74

I read that exact article again a few days ago, the editors note wasn't there as of that point.

If you say so...

In the video Jonathan Karl even says "he has obtained 12 different versions".

You're being dishonest AGAIN! You deliberately omitted the four words that followed "versions":

of those talking points

Reading it again it's very different than it originally was.

Do you mean like your story is now changing:

Seems like Karl is sticking by his source and sounds more like a FOX news report.

Now, you are "absolutely alluding" that ABC's story is a lie. That tends to make me feel that you are a bit "delusional".

I didn't deliberately misconstrue anything you said, not my style.

Sure you did! Just like you tried to do with Karl's words from the video. You don't have any style. You only have the dishonest habit of twisting words to suit your needs. That's why you don't like to include source links!

I simply didn't understand your tantrum in demanding proof when you'd obviously seen the same articles I had.

Of course you didn't understand my "tantrum in demanding proof"! That's because you don't give a damn about the truth. If you did, you would be thanking me, instead of trying to make your dead horse come back to life.

See ya,
Milt

reply to post by BenReclused


In all my time here on ATS and being ideologically opposed to the majority here, I've never once been accused of dishonesty... being wrong, sure but never once of intentional misrepresentation. I've not once accused you of being dishonest, we disagree that's all... I've tried better to understand wtf you're going on about and I remain sure that you're not being dishonest, I wish I could be sure that you weren't conducting yourself with malice as well... I can't seem to will myself to do so though.

When you're capable of discussion without accusing and assuming, I'll be happy to continue.

Originally posted by BenReclused
reply to post by muse7

 

As far as I'm concerned, until someone posts a source for the ALLEGEDLY altered "Benghazi emails", there are none!

This current hoopla is about nothing more than paraphrasing!

The emails weren't "para-phrased" to the reporters in question.

Each reporter was read the precise same language....thus multiple news outlets having the same edited "email leaks"

Originally posted by BenReclused

That the whole "it started as protests" thing began with PAGE 1/DRAFT 1 issued by CIA analysts...NOT added by the Whitehouse or State like the GOP claimed.

No it didn't! Nor was it ever added! That "it started as protests" "thing" doesn't appear in any of the drafts. Either Ms. Rice added that herself, or someone told her to do so. It sure as hell didn't come from the CIA.

You seem confused..

Page four of the release shows the first email from CIA on talking points...
www.cnn.com...

It’s important to note that all the evidence — then and now — shows that the talking points always said that the attack grew out of a spontaneous demonstration in response to the Cairo protests. That was in the original draft of the talking points, and it remained in the final draft. There has been no evidence showing an election-year cover-up.

factcheck.org...

Originally posted by BenReclused
reply to post by Indigo5

 

That's hillarious...you know that has all been answered? Never happened. The four Spec Ops who only had 9mm side-arms...that were told to stay where they were...protecting the OTHER Libyan embassy...were told by African Command to stay put so we wouldn't have further deaths..and two fully equipped Spec Ops teams were already en route..and the plane they wanted to take to abandon the Tripoli Embassy Personel was due and didn't arrive in Benghazi for several hours...after the event.

Command made the right call not to leave the Tripoli Personel unprotected while embassies in Libya appeared to be going south...for a flight that wouldn't have arrived in time...and four guys with sidearms...and two other Spec Ops teams already en route.

Uh huh...

Nice try though...but facts have a way of winning the day...maybe post some made up-emails?

Yeah. "Nice try"! By not posting any sources, it looks like you posted a bunch of "made up" comments.

The GOP just got busted making sh*& up again.

Guess who I feel is "making sh*& up again"! I'd sure like to see your sources, but I'll bet you won't post them.

See ya,
Milt

Apologies...I mistakenly assumed you were educated about the things that you were BSing about....

just four Special Operations soldiers [Tripoli]

the team was reviewing security at U.S. embassies throughout the Middle East and was not prepared for a combat assault mission, being armed with only 9mm sidearms.

flight did not arrive in time for their presence to have had an impact in the fighting.

They also noted that the situation at Benghazi remained unclear and there were concerns the Embassy in Tripoli also could become a target.

A Libyan C-130 transport plane that would’ve carried the second group of U.S. Special Forces operatives from Tripoli to Benghazi ultimately left Tripoli for Benghazi between 6 and 6:30 a.m., after Doherty and Woods were dead.

Two separate U.S. Special Forces teams from elsewhere in Europe were ultimately authorized to respond to the attacks,

U.S. military officials confirmed late Monday that a four-man Special Operations Forces team was denied permission to leave the US Embassy in Tripoli following reports that the consulate in Benghazi had been attacked.

LINK

Also here..

•The Special Forces team was not prepared for a combat mission; they were on a fact-finding tour of US embassies in the Middle East, gathering information on security, and they were armed only with handguns.
•At that point, the situation was still unclear and officials were worried that the embassy in Tripoli might also become a target.


U.S. military officials confirmed late Monday that a four-man Special Operations Forces team was denied permission to leave the US Embassy in Tripoli following reports that the consulate in Benghazi had been attacked.

The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the team was reviewing security at U.S. embassies throughout the Middle East and was not prepared for a combat assault mission, being armed with only 9mm sidearms.

They also noted that the situation at Benghazi remained unclear and there were concerns the Embassy in Tripoli also could become a target.

openchannel.nbcnews.com...

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by dragonridr

 

So it's like I said, the theory is that ABC lied.

Yep. A Republican Aide claimed to read transcribed emails from the hearing to the ABC reporter, explaining that the original emails were classified and congressman were only allowed to transcribe them...and the ABC reporter claimed "After reviewing Whitehouse emails"...when the reporter never actually saw them.

This does not absolve the initial fact that the Leaker provided specific and fake edits when sharing the emails verbally.

This wasn't the ABC reporter "para-phrasing"...becasue the "The Weekly Standard" reported the precise same emails from the precise same source.

Though the Weekly Standard has attempted to obfuscate thier BS reporting rather than confront the lies they were handed...The enire article surrounding the false emails has this one liner at the end now..

Correction: This piece originally said that Victoria Nuland suggested changes to the talking points because she was concerned about criticism from Republicans in Congress. That's inaccurate. She suggested changes because of concerns from members of Congress.

www.weeklystandard.com...

Follow that? Nuland (State Department) wasn't worried about a Congressional investigation "beating up State"...Her reservations were actually due to concerns expressed by Congress (Intelligence Committee) on claiming AL-Qaida before the investigation came to that conclusion.

reply to post by Indigo5

Apologies...I mistakenly assumed you were educated about the things that you were BSing about....

That's okay! I'm not the least bit offended. Very few have as much education and experience in pushing BS as you have.

Thanks for finally posting your links! I'll get back to you later.

See ya,
Milt