is benghazi eligible/worthy for/of realtime conspiracy theorieness ??

thanks R.C. ... you are a Rock,Well.... what's next ?? locusts ??

 

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3020945/posts?page=17

Did The GOP Alter Benghazi Emails?
Political Realities ^ | 05/18/13 | LD Jackson

Posted on Saturday, May 18, 2013 8:02:47 AM by LD Jackson

Presently, the Internet is awash with liberal attempts to blunt whatever affect the scandal surrounding Benghazi may have on President Obama and Hillary Clinton. Bettybb, our resident liberal, left a comment yesterday with an embedded link that supposedly proved Benghazi was a completely manufactured scandal, perpetrated by the GOP to make it look like the Obama administration, including Hillary Clinton, was up to their eyeballs in a coverup of what happened in Benghazi on September 11, 2012.

The story she linked to is based on a report from CBS News. In that report, Major Garrett makes the claim that unnamed sources have told him that Republicans on Capitol Hill leaked emails to the media that had been altered to show the White House and the State Department in a bad light on Benghazi. The basic premise of the liberal supporters of President Obama is that the only coverup about Benghazi is the one that has been created by the GOP.

As I said in the first sentence, the Internet is swarming with this story. It is all over the place, with links from The Huffington Post, CBS News, Think Progress, Mother Jones, etc. That's what I found during my first Internet search of the story. It was only on the third page of that search that I found a report that tries to give some real context to what may have happened. The rest is all just a bunch of "GOP alters emails, they are evil, blah, blah, blah". I need to quote more than my normal amount from the story because I want to make sure the context is clear.


The Blaze - Garrett pinpoints two key differences in his CBS News report about the email exchanges. When comparing the quotes, the text in the White House version is noticeably different from the version that was previously highlighted.

Garrett notes that one of the quotes in question belonged to national security adviser Ben Rhodes. The official’s comment in the email purportedly leaked (presumably to ABC’s Jon Karl) read, ”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 the wording in the White House version said, ”We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation.”

The words “State Department” were not present in this latter text.

The Rhodes issue isn’t the only difference noted by Garrett, though. The Huffington Post also summarized the changes between the White House version of the e-mails and the set that Garrett claims was put out by the GOP. Here’s another one of the disparities from these exchanges:

The GOP version of Nuland’s comment, according to CBS News: “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 White House email: “The penultimate point could be abused by members to beat the State Department for not paying attention to Agency warnings.”

Regardless of who is right about the initial ABC News report, Business Insider notes that the State Department still had involvement in the White House’s version: “The emails released by the White House, however, do show a significant amount of concern on the part of the State Department. Brendan Buck, the spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, said the emails showed the “political nature” of the State Department’s talking-point changes.”

Clearly, there are differences in the two versions of emails that have been released. There is no denying that and I would be a fool to try. But, is there an explanation that has more to it than the claim that the GOP is out to get President Obama and possibly damage Hillary Clinton beyond repair? Let's turn again to The Blaze.




As TheBlaze reported earlier this week, this story isn’t new; disparities between the e-mails were already highlighted by CNN’s Jake Tapper earlier this week, as the host also noted that Rhodes didn’t mention the State Department in his official Benghazi correspondence.

While a possible explanation is not mentioned in Garrett’s report, TheBlaze previously highlighted one possible reason for the difference in wording. Here’s a portion of our previous report, which provides some context:

Tapper, who previously worked at ABC, reports that “whoever provided those accounts seemingly invented the notion that Rhodes wanted the concerns of the State Department specifically addressed.” ABC’s Jonathan Karl responded to Tapper’s report Tuesday by saying he quoted verbatim a source who had seen the original emails but was not permitted to make copies of them.

Karl said he contacted his source, who said that Rhodes’ 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.”

To review: The so-called GOP version of the emails consisted of someone reading the talking points to ABC News. This does not dismiss the differences, but it does add some more context to the scenario in helping to explain why the texts vary in the first place. And it certainly doesn’t implicate any obvious Republican source.

So that makes Garrett’s charge that it was “Republicans” who altered the emails much more curious. In fact, Garrett claims that there is a “Republican version” of the emails that was previously released and that this text is apparently inaccurate compared to the emails that were finally released by the White House this week. Throughout his report, Garrett even mentions this “Republican version.”

He wrote:

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 that in the actual email, Rhodes did not mention the State Department.

But that is a new charge. While it is entirely possible GOP members leaked the e-mails, there has been no admission of that publicly, and Garrett doesn’t cite sources.

So where does this all leave us? First, there’s no denying that there are discrepancies. But is it true that it was Republicans who either altered them or were behind intentionally misleading the public? As the CBS report stands, that allegation has not been proven.

I can not make the definitive claim that the GOP did not alter the emails from the White House and then leak them to the media in a grand attempt to destroy President Obama and Hillary Clinton in one fell swoop. At the same time, the claims being made by the liberal supporters of Obama and Clinton are also not definitive. The differences are there, but there is more to that than the liberal media is reporting. There is also more to what happened in Benghazi than they are reporting, or even want to admit.

The facts remain that the attack in Benghazi left four Americans dead, including the Ambassador. The facts remain that the Obama administration, including Hillary Clinton, tried their best to blame the attack on a YouTube video. The facts remain that the attack had nothing to do with the YouTube video. The facts remain that the talking points were repeatedly scrubbed, against the advice and consent of the CIA.

Just because President Obama, Hillary Clinton, and their liberal supporters don't want to admit that the Benghazi coverup is real, doesn't change the facts.

I am dying laughing that that crybaby glenn beck is with you guys (antibirther)...

if that isn't the final red flag hoist with your own petard what is ?? he's all yours...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petard

 

I plan to make any further replies to Scott at http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/

 

where I was banned for life I think... like, three times. but there is no 0bama controversy.

may I call your "radio" show again sometime ? it was so funny hearing your obot gang calling for help

it's true though you all better when it's five or ten against little old me....

 

gee bob, this is your fifth post already... who knew

 

this message is brought to you by 0bama teaching moments. use only the tools you have available, that are in front of you...

(notwithstanding too long teleprompter speeches) what's next leo ? (west wing reference)

 

So, 2 weeks or so after I last visited here, The only people that have been proven to be lying about everything and to have been corruptly been using the politival process for their gain are... yes republicans.

And yes ScottE it would have had to have been a GOP congressman as the original source as the original emails were the Congressmen who saw the emails in a closed intelligence briefing, and ABC news would have laughed off anyone else as having no knowledge of the crap they are spouting. And of course we all savored the sight of Karl Rove lying his ass off on FOX in full knowlage that there was no way on earth the white house would actually release the emails, only to find himself scuppered and looking even more of an ass when the Whitehouse actually released the emails.

But the fact that so far there has bot been one hint of corruption laid on the whitehouse for all their 6 month of republican effort trying to get something to actually stick means that President Obama is stupid and corrupt according to Scott.

Oh yeah Scott, heres president Obama taking on the entire republican caucus in Jan 2009. WITHOUT A TELEPROMPTER. It was so pathetic that FOX had to kill the feed halfway through as the GOP were looking like total idiots, so you wouldn't have seen most of it.. Its starts here and there's links to the other parts on the side of the page. I'm not going to bother pasting all 7 parts because there's no way you will even click on the first link anyway.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1y04g6OPLnQ

Oh yeah. Completely forgot;

Whistleblower Wensday. Whistleblower wensday.

 

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2013/07/rep-stockman-joins-proud-birther-navy.html

Stockman, Special Operations Speaks to Unroll Record-Setting Petition/Scroll Down Capitol Building Steps Demanding Benghazi House Select Committee

U.S. Congressman Steve Stockman

WASHINGTON – Congressman Steve Stockman filed a discharge petition last week to force a vote of the U.S. House on establishing a Select Committee to investigate the Sept. 11, 2012 killings of four Americans at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya by a mob of terrorists.

Stockman will formally announce the discharge petition at a noon Tuesday press conference on the House Ceremonial Stairway. There, the largest petition ever presented to Congress, containing the signatures of 1,000 Special Operations veterans demanding a House Select Committee to investigate the Benghazi Terrorist Massacre, will be unrolled on the steps.

The dramatic unrolling of the 60-foot long petition/scroll down the House Ceremonial Stairway will be the opening volley in a nationwide campaign urging House members to sign the Discharge Petition forcing House consideration of HR 36 – the bill to establish a Select Committee to fully investigate the Benghazi Massacre.
- See more at: http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blog...-proud-birther-navy.html#sthash.6V3Dw9Gj.dpuf

this is the way it's supposed to work.

 

I just got this from congressman ghomert:

We Need To Get To The Bottom Of What Truly Happened In Benghazi

This week, I joined in a collective, public event along with numerous Special Forces or Operations veterans and some other members of Congress outside the U.S. Capitol. We are continuing to demand that a new investigation by a House Select Committee with Subpoena power be launched to get factual answers to the Benghazi terror attack. Unrolling a 60-foot long scroll outside the Capitol building, our group revealed the nearly one thousand Special Ops veterans who want a select committee in the House appointed to investigate the government response to the attack that killed four brave Americans including the President’s personal representative, Ambassador Chris Stevens.

Just like the Fast and Furious scandal, this crisis is being swept under the rug by the Obama Administration. They want to play fast and loose with the truth. However, the families of the victims of the murders along with the American people deserve answers, not silence and more excuses. The American people ought to finally have at least a fraction of the transparency that our President promised us when he was seeking votes back five years ago. Instead we are left with more delays and obfuscation.

Those are reasons that I agreed to help my friend, Rep. Steve Stockman, with a “discharge petition.” If we get 218 members of Congress to sign it, then the Speaker is forced to bring this issue to the floor for a vote of Congress. We need to get to the bottom of what truly happened in Benghazi. The blood of our American patriots is crying out for the truth. They deserve justice. Their families deserve honesty. We cannot forget the sacrifice they made and the bravery they displayed in the face of a dire situation.

Although some in this administration might ask again, “What difference does it make?” The fact is that it makes all the difference in the world to the American men and women who have sons, daughters, fathers or mothers serving in our courageous military and dutiful Department of State. We must find out specifically what went wrong so that it can be avoided and lives saved in the future. The one certain fact we know is that the attack in Benghazi did NOT happen as the result of some “video,“ despite the lies that were told for days after the attack by this administration. We must get to the truth so that precious American lives may be saved in the future. Having become friends with a number of the loved ones of our deceased heroes, it is actually painful to deal with the cover up that continues.

In the military, we were taught as so many who went before us, that the American people would never desert us while we were fighting for them. Benghazi is yet another incident that makes our warriors wonder. They should never have to. We must find out why our heroes were so nonchalantly abandoned and make sure it does not happen again. Seeking truth and justice is what Americans do; it’s who we are. We are not supposed to cover-up truth, we are supposed to embrace it – good, bad, or indifferent.

It is clear only a select committee with subpoena power can bring the truth into light. I hope that more and more Americans will continue demand that their members of Congress will sign on to our “discharge petition” to force having a select committee to get the critical answers. A person’s party affiliation does not matter– truth does not care about parties. But, the truth needs to come out and there appears no other way to get to it. I have heard from so many of you that are demanding whatever it takes to find get to the bottom of the Benghazi murders. As your servant, I will not let up until we get answers to our critical questions and the murderers who committed this act of war against America are brought to justice.

Faithfully Yours,
Louie

 

[video=youtube;rE8fdqXxdLQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE8fdqXxdLQ#at=74[/video]

 

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blog...reaks-law-disclosing-benghazi-indictment.html

President Obama surprised aides when he revealed today the existence of a sealed indictment in the Benghazi, Libya, attack, leaving some wondering if he crossed a legal line. At a press conference at the White House, President Obama was asked whether justice would come to those responsible for the terrorist attack nearly a year ago in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador. "[W]e have informed, I think, the public that there's a sealed indictment," the president responded.

"It's sealed for a reason. But we are intent on capturing those who carried out this attack, and we're going to stay on it until we get them." That marked the only official confirmation so far of a sealed indictment in the Benghazi case. For days, officials across the law enforcement and intelligence communities have refused to publicly confirm reports of a sealed indictment. After all, according to federal law, "no person may disclose [a sealed] indictment's existence," and a "knowing violation … may be punished as a contempt of court." Contempt of court carries a maximum sentence of six months in jail. A U.S. official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, called the president's disclosure "crazy." "Doesn't the law apply to the president too?" the official asked, and then jokingly added, "I guess he could pardon himself." [...] - Continued at ABC News. Hat tip Julio. - See more at: http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blog...benghazi-indictment.html#sthash.IGujIiLx.dpuf

 

whistleblower Wednesday.... foreigners please note the actual spelling of Wednesday. not wensday. jeezum crow...



http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogsp ot.com/2013/08/bombshell-audio-whistleblower-attorney.html


[video=youtube;qtmeo07cXGQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtmeo07cXGQ[/video]

 

I got the Spelling of Wednesday wrong once. I'm Dyslexic, it happens. Big deal. You wrong got the fact that the Wednesday whistleblower hearings were going to explode all "the corruption of Benghazi" for weeks, and you still can't admit that you got it wrong. Whats your excuse, racism or insanity?

 

see, if I was dyslexic you guys would call me a racist. no, i'd say you're doing pretty well. I wish you weren't quite so mean and aggressive, but we can work on that. [video=youtube;PTjz4ikAYSc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTjz4ikAYSc#at=20[/video]


the impact of that day (Wednesday) was stunning, I guess it depends on your perspective and political bent. I don't know if Hillary can campaign on "what difference does it make", but in this country political anything doesn't surprise me anymore.

 

60 minutes tonight.

 

Christ, arn't you tired of getting your ass kicked on this?

2002: U.S. Consulate In Karachi, Pakistan, Attacked; 10 Killed, 51 Injured.

2004: U.S. Embassy Bombed In Uzbekistan.

2004: Gunmen Stormed U.S. Consulate In Saudi Arabia.

2006: Armed Men Attacked U.S. Embassy In Syria.

2007: Grenade Launched Into U.S. Embassy In Athens.

2008: Rioters Set Fire To U.S. Embassy In Serbia.

2008: Ten People Killed In Bombings At U.S. Embassy In Yemen.

Were those "administration failures" too?

And I read the transcript of the 60 minutes program. There was precisely sod and all in it. And there was at least one bare faced lie in that it said that there was no military aid sent from outside Lybia but never mentioned that Marines were sent from inside Lybia to help.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57609479/60-minutes-benghazi/

So yeah. a big load of nothing. Just another searing bit of evidence in the long story of the Benghazi hoax, which you have swallowed hook, line and sinker.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhOWni2bPmI

 

So much for 60 Minutes:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/11/01/60-minutes-benghazi-report-takes-a-huge-credibi/196705

More at the link...

 

hi rcrs... right, as if media matters...

I think some witnesses are going to be interviewed finally. congress will help the executive to be transparent.

after all, we wouldn't want to think our government might try to pull a fast one on us. or make promises they intend not to keep...

I have to agree though that the 60 minutes piece was rather milquetoast.

 

Wow, you mean no-one testified on WHISTLE-BLOWER WEDNESDAY?

And since you are laughing at Media matters How about this?

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/p...i_witness_may_not_have_been_an_actual_witness

Gosh, you mean he has a book in print and a movie in the works? I thought you were all about corruption scott... as long as its fake corruption stories about Barack Obama of course.

Or maybe the washington post will be immune to your "haa haa please ignore this" strategy

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...fcad66-4258-11e3-a751-f032898f2dbc_story.html

 

you know you guys are going down soon...

 

60 Minutes used to be so much better at what they do.

 

Yep, CBS also failed to disclose that their publishing company is the one who is publishing the liar's book.

 

That's nothing. CBS -- as do all three of the traditional broadcast networks -- claims to be politically neutral but John Dickerson is the political director of CBS news and the chief political correspondent for one of the most liberal e-zines in the nation; Slate.com in which he makes no bones about supporting the liberal cause on every political issue. Nice, eh?

 

That actually does not matter much to me, since today almost every corporation has a connection to another corporation. I might start to take notice if say everybody they interview has a book published by S&S, or if authors published by Random House are never interviewed. Because those are examples of bias, simply having a book published by some other entity in the company is not proof of bias.

This is something I find particularly disturbing. All to often I hear from journalists who want to "change the world", and I find that particularly disturbing. Because I thought journalists were supposed to be neutral observers who report what happens, not some kind of biased lackey who wants to shape our beliefs and opinions into something they want us to believe.

Myself, I have long ago written off most "mainstream media" by itself, and make my own opinions based upon multiple sources. I take some from here (CNN), a little from there (Fox), and try to see what is really going on between the lines by both what both sides are saying, as well as by what they are not saying.

Because I do not want to be some idealistic journalists social experiment, who wants to change my viewpoint to match what they think it should be. I just want facts and information, let me make up my own damned mind what to think or not think about things.

But I realize that most people are sheep, and would be lost without somebody telling them what to believe and how to behave in reaction to something.

 

For what it's worth I usually start off by checking out the BBC's perspective on U.S. and World events and then I check out Yahoo! News as it presents a cross section of sources. After that I might go see what the Huffington Post (solidly liberal) or the Townhall (solidly conservative) think about the same issues.