Told you Benghazi would blow up.

I knew sooner or later it would and today it has. Obama must mad he must be very mad the media is not protecting this anymore. It is all over the news.

Newly released emails are raising additional questions about the Obama administration's story-line on the Benghazi attack, showing top-level efforts to downplay terrorism ahead of public statements by UN Ambassador Susan Rice.

Eh, I'll be convinced when Obama is impeached. It'll never happen.

eber322 wrote:

Eh, I'll be convinced when Obama is impeached. It'll never happen.

What are they going to impeach him for? As far I know he committed no crime. Just lied. Hillary on the other hand should be thrown in jail for lying to congress. I just want the answers what was Obama doing between 5pm and 3am. Who gave the orders to stand down.

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

What are they going to impeach him for? As far I know he committed no crime. Just lied.

That's what Bill Clinton was impeached for. Every single thing Obama has ever said has been a lie.

[quote="eber322"]

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

eber322 wrote:

What are they going to impeach him for? As far I know he committed no crime. Just lied.

That's what Bill Clinton was impeached for. Every single thing Obama has ever said has been a lie.

Clinton lied under oath Obama has not.

Sure he has, he lied while taking his oath.

eber322 wrote:

Sure he has, he lied while taking his oath.

Lol maybe so however he didn't lie to a grand jury.

Well, I guess my only point was that you said "Told you Benghazi would blow up", but unless it leads to impeachment, then it amounts to nothing.

Technically, a president can be impeached for doing anything illegal and Obama has done tons of illegal stuff. But that doesn't matter if the rest of the government won't do their job. Just like Clinton's impeachment didn't matter because they failed to do the next step and boot him from office.

eber322 wrote:

Well, I guess my only point was that you said "Told you Benghazi would blow up", but unless it leads to impeachment, then it amounts to nothing.

Technically, a president can be impeached for doing anything illegal and Obama has done tons of illegal stuff. But that doesn't matter if the rest of the government won't do their job. Just like Clinton's impeachment didn't matter because they failed to do the next step and boot him from office.

Hillary might go to jail for lying to congress. The prez well unless he commited some crime will get off scott free.

eber322 wrote:

Well, I guess my only point was that you said "Told you Benghazi would blow up", but unless it leads to impeachment, then it amounts to nothing.

Technically, a president can be impeached for doing anything illegal and Obama has done tons of illegal stuff.

What is the tons of illegal stuff the president has done?

I really have to ask what did either Hilary Clinton or the President lied about with respect to Benghazi? This is such a non-story it beats all the other non-stories the right has been pushing for the last five years. I know the right wingers got all tingly in the pants when this happened because they thought they FINALLY had something real to use against the president but it turned out to be another dud.

Samurai wrote:

eber322 wrote:

Well, I guess my only point was that you said "Told you Benghazi would blow up", but unless it leads to impeachment, then it amounts to nothing.

Technically, a president can be impeached for doing anything illegal and Obama has done tons of illegal stuff.

What is the tons of illegal stuff the president has done?

I really have to ask what did either Hilary Clinton or the President lied about with respect to Benghazi? This is such a non-story it beats all the other non-stories the right has been pushing for the last five years. I know the right wingers got all tingly in the pants when this happened because they thought they FINALLY had something real to use against the president but it turned out to be another dud.

Ya I have heard that line. We now know that the story was changed 12 times. The White House is saying it is the CIAs fault the CIA is saying no we didn't change it. We need to know why the troops were told to stand down. Who gave the order. What was the president doing between 5 pm and 3 am. Did Hillary change the talking points? Who told Susan Rice to come out and talk about the video. The President lied about this attack being about a video which know now was not the case it was a planned attack. Why did the one ex Navy Seal think he was getting an air strike and painted the target. I know the left only cares when Americans are killed when a republican is president but not a democrat. At least that is how I see it and no one is going to change my mind on it. Why is the guy that made the video still in jail with no charges pending? Plenty of lies to go around.

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

Quote :

Ya I have heard that line. We now know that the story was changed 12 times. The White House is saying it is the CIAs fault the CIA is saying no we didn't change it. We need to know why the troops were told to stand down. Who gave the order. What was the president doing between 5 pm and 3 am. Did Hillary change the talking points? Who told Susan Rice to come out and talk about the video. The President lied about this attack being about a video which know now was not the case it was a planned attack. Why did the one ex Navy Seal think he was getting an air strike and painted the target. I know the left only cares when Americans are killed when a republican is president but not a democrat. At least that is how I see it and no one is going to change my mind on it. Why is the guy that made the video still in jail with no charges pending? Plenty of lies to go around.

The story wasn't changed 12 times, the particular language was changed but not the overall premise.  As far as the initial assessment of it being about the video that was an assessment by the CIA because of the protests in other countries like Egypt.  Is it really unthinkable that they just got it wrong in the beginning and things changed as more information was ascertained?  There have been a multitude of administration and military officials who have said publicly that there were no assets able to reach the consulate in time to make a difference.  I'm not sure about the timeline but there are photos of the President in the Oval Office meeting with national security advisers the evening of the attacks.  This event was a tragedy there's no doubt about that.  But there really is no basis for the idea that the either the President or Secretary of State purposefully did not help those people or covered up anything.  There have been many congressional hearings and all kinds of reporting by various new organizations and there is no proof of either one of those scenarios.  Much as the right would like there to be.

Yes it was changed just to show you I will use a ABC website who is liberal. 

The talking points used by Amb. Susan Rice on the Sunday shows on the weekend after the 9/11/12 terror attack in Benghazi underwent at least 12 edits – including revisions by the Obama administration’s State Department — new emails obtained by ABC News show. Those revisions included scrubbing all references to an Al Qaeda-affiliated group and all references to previous CIA warnings about a terror threat. From ABC: When it became clear last fall that the CIA’s now discredited Benghazi talking points were flawed, the White House said repeatedly the documents were put together almost entirely by the intelligence community, but White House documents reviewed by Congress suggest a different story. ABC News has obtained 12 different versions of the talking points that show they were extensively edited as they evolved from the drafts first written entirely by the CIA to the final version distributed to Congress and to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice before she appeared on five talk shows the Sunday after that attack. White House emails reviewed by ABC News suggest the edits were made with extensive input from the State Department. The edits included requests from the State Department that references to the Al Qaeda-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia be deleted as well references to CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack. ABC’s Chief White House Correspondent Jonathan Karl said on Friday morning that the talking points were “dramatically edited by the administration” and that State Department Spokeswoman Victoria Nuland played a major role in them. wrote:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/10/abc-news-releases-big-benghazi-report-talking-points-changed-12-times-dramatically-edited-by-administration-and-scrubbed-terror

Yes they could have had military flights overhead within hours. Remember the one guy thought help was coming and painted the target.

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

Yes it was changed just to show you I will use a ABC website who is liberal.

It has since been revealed that ABC didn't have the actual emails but rather summaries of the emails that were passed along by a third party and they were heavily edited to change the substance of what was said in the emails.

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

Yes they could have had military flights overhead within hours. Remember the one guy thought help was coming and painted the target.

As far as anyone painting a target I've heard this on limpball's show but haven't seen any actual corroboration anywhere else.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/05/20/where-are-abc-news-corrections-for-their-false/194146

Quote :

ABC News Chief White House Correspondent Jonathan Karl's statement in response to criticism for the deceptive sourcing in his so-called "exclusive" on administration talking points on the September attacks in Benghazi is fundamentally misleading.

In a statement to CNN, Karl claimed that ABC News "updated our story immediately" when it became clear it was based on misquoted emails from administration officials. But Karl also insisted the story "still entirely stands," and the network has issued no on-air corrections. In fact, in two on-air reports on the release of administration emails that debunked his reporting, Karl said that those emails "confirm" ABC News' original story.

Conservatives have long claimed that the Obama administration edited references to terrorism out of the Benghazi talking points for political reasons. Karl buttressed those allegations with a May 10 report that claimed, based on what appeared to be direct quotes from the emails of White House and State Department aides, that "the edits were made with extensive input from the State Department."
Karl's "exclusive" received widespread coverage even though it was largely a rehash of previously covered debates on who gave input into the talking points. It did not disprove what Gen. David Petraeus, former head of the Central Intelligence Agency, testified in November: that the intelligence community signed off on the final draft of the talking points, and that references to terrorist groups in Libya were removed in order to avoid tipping off those groups.

But Karl's story dissolved after CNN's Jake Tapper obtained a key email from a White House aide that differed substantially from how it had been quoted by Karl. The ABC News reporter then acknowledged that he had never seen the actual emails on which he had reported. Rather, a Republican source had read him their own summaries of those emails.

On May 20, CNN's Howard Kurtz reported the following statement from Karl: "Clearly, I regret the email was quoted incorrectly and I regret that it's become a distraction from the story, which still entirely stands. I should have been clearer about the attribution. We updated our story immediately."

This statement merely compounds the dubious practices that in which Karl and ABC News have engaged with regard to this story.

Karl's statements that he "regret[s]" the email obtained by Tapper was "quoted incorrectly" and that he "should have been clearer about the attribution" effectively ignores the central impropriety that led media observers to call his story "sloppy" and "inaccurate": his repeated false claims, both on-air and in his online report, that he had actually "obtained" the emails on which he reported. In so doing, and in providing what he described as direct quotes from those emails, Karl willfully misled his audience. As TPM Media's Josh Marshall wrote:
 

Quote :

[T]hat's not a minor point because the impact of his story was based on his having reviewed them himself rather than relying on a second hand account -- having gotten some summary of them from a tendentious source -- a Republican staffer. The fact that Karl put the non-quotes within quotation marks makes it pretty clear that he was led to believe that he was being given verbatim transcriptions. You never put summaries in quotes.

Karl's claim that his story "entirely stands" is laughable. Don't take my word for it: both CNN's Tapper and CBS' Major Garrett have pointed out how Karl's story diverges from reality in the wake of the release of the administration emails on the editing of the talking points.

Karl's statement that "We updated our story immediately" is also risible. ABC News has never addressed or corrected on-air any of its reporting on the story -- including repeated false claims by Karl himself and by Martha Raddatz and Reena Ninan that the network had actually "obtained" the emails.

In fact, in his May 15 report for World News with Diane Sawyer on the White House's release of roughly 100 pages of administration emails on the talking points, Karl claimed that the released emails "confirm ABC News' exclusive report."

Likewise, during his May 16 report for Good Morning America, Karl said the emails "confirm what ABC News first reported."

As for the online version of the story, Karl authored a May 14 blog post explaining that he had never actually seen the emails and had instead been "quoting verbatim a source who reviewed the original documents and shared detailed notes" and providing that source's false explanation for the discrepancy. ABC News has appended that post to the original May 10 story along with the following "editor's note":
 

Quote :

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.

The editor's note does not address the issue of Karl's false suggestion in the article that he had actually obtained the emails in question, other than to say he should have been "more precise" in his sourcing. While the note claims the differences between the actual email's text and the text Karl quoted have been "corrected," the original false quote actually remains unchanged in the story, though Karl's explanation for those discrepancies has been added to the end of the article.

And of course, the claim that "the remainder of the report stands as accurate" is a ridiculous attempt to save face that is frankly insulting to ABC News' viewers.

Samurai wrote:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/05/20/where-are-abc-news-corrections-for-their-false/194146

Quote :

ABC News Chief White House Correspondent Jonathan Karl's statement in response to criticism for the deceptive sourcing in his so-called "exclusive" on administration talking points on the September attacks in Benghazi is fundamentally misleading.

In a statement to CNN, Karl claimed that ABC News "updated our story immediately" when it became clear it was based on misquoted emails from administration officials. But Karl also insisted the story "still entirely stands," and the network has issued no on-air corrections. In fact, in two on-air reports on the release of administration emails that debunked his reporting, Karl said that those emails "confirm" ABC News' original story.

Conservatives have long claimed that the Obama administration edited references to terrorism out of the Benghazi talking points for political reasons. Karl buttressed those allegations with a May 10 report that claimed, based on what appeared to be direct quotes from the emails of White House and State Department aides, that "the edits were made with extensive input from the State Department."
Karl's "exclusive" received widespread coverage even though it was largely a rehash of previously covered debates on who gave input into the talking points. It did not disprove what Gen. David Petraeus, former head of the Central Intelligence Agency, testified in November: that the intelligence community signed off on the final draft of the talking points, and that references to terrorist groups in Libya were removed in order to avoid tipping off those groups.

But Karl's story dissolved after CNN's Jake Tapper obtained a key email from a White House aide that differed substantially from how it had been quoted by Karl. The ABC News reporter then acknowledged that he had never seen the actual emails on which he had reported. Rather, a Republican source had read him their own summaries of those emails.

On May 20, CNN's Howard Kurtz reported the following statement from Karl: "Clearly, I regret the email was quoted incorrectly and I regret that it's become a distraction from the story, which still entirely stands. I should have been clearer about the attribution. We updated our story immediately."

This statement merely compounds the dubious practices that in which Karl and ABC News have engaged with regard to this story.

Karl's statements that he "regret[s]" the email obtained by Tapper was "quoted incorrectly" and that he "should have been clearer about the attribution" effectively ignores the central impropriety that led media observers to call his story "sloppy" and "inaccurate": his repeated false claims, both on-air and in his online report, that he had actually "obtained" the emails on which he reported. In so doing, and in providing what he described as direct quotes from those emails, Karl willfully misled his audience. As TPM Media's Josh Marshall wrote:
 

Quote :

[T]hat's not a minor point because the impact of his story was based on his having reviewed them himself rather than relying on a second hand account -- having gotten some summary of them from a tendentious source -- a Republican staffer. The fact that Karl put the non-quotes within quotation marks makes it pretty clear that he was led to believe that he was being given verbatim transcriptions. You never put summaries in quotes.

Karl's claim that his story "entirely stands" is laughable. Don't take my word for it: both CNN's Tapper and CBS' Major Garrett have pointed out how Karl's story diverges from reality in the wake of the release of the administration emails on the editing of the talking points.

Karl's statement that "We updated our story immediately" is also risible. ABC News has never addressed or corrected on-air any of its reporting on the story -- including repeated false claims by Karl himself and by Martha Raddatz and Reena Ninan that the network had actually "obtained" the emails.

In fact, in his May 15 report for World News with Diane Sawyer on the White House's release of roughly 100 pages of administration emails on the talking points, Karl claimed that the released emails "confirm ABC News' exclusive report."

Likewise, during his May 16 report for Good Morning America, Karl said the emails "confirm what ABC News first reported."

As for the online version of the story, Karl authored a May 14 blog post explaining that he had never actually seen the emails and had instead been "quoting verbatim a source who reviewed the original documents and shared detailed notes" and providing that source's false explanation for the discrepancy. ABC News has appended that post to the original May 10 story along with the following "editor's note":
 

Quote :

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.

The editor's note does not address the issue of Karl's false suggestion in the article that he had actually obtained the emails in question, other than to say he should have been "more precise" in his sourcing. While the note claims the differences between the actual email's text and the text Karl quoted have been "corrected," the original false quote actually remains unchanged in the story, though Karl's explanation for those discrepancies has been added to the end of the article.

And of course, the claim that "the remainder of the report stands as accurate" is a ridiculous attempt to save face that is frankly insulting to ABC News' viewers.

Sorry but media matters? Seriously the most liberal website on the planet. Who's mission it is to destroy the republican party? Sorry but I am not buying that BS from them.

Except that you can't find any inaccuracies with their reporting so let's just dismiss them wholesale for pointing out the BS from the right.

Samurai wrote:

Except that you can't find any inaccuracies with their reporting so let's just dismiss them wholesale for pointing out the BS from the right.

I am doing nothing more then the left does to Fox News. :D

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

Samurai wrote:

Except that you can't find any inaccuracies with their reporting so let's just dismiss them wholesale for pointing out the BS from the right.

I am doing nothing more then the left does to Fox News. :D

How about from a different source then?

Quote :

One day after The White House released 100 pages of Benghazi emails, a report has surfaced alleging that Republicans released a set with altered text.

CBS News reported Thursday that leaked versions sent out by the GOP last Friday had visible differences than Wednesday's official batch. Two correspondences that were singled out in the report came from National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes and State Department Spokeswoman Victoria Nuland.

The GOP version of Rhodes' comment, according to CBS News: "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."

The White House email: "We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/16/republicans-benghazi-emails_n_3289428.html

Or maybe here.
http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/14/cnn-exclusive-white-house-email-contradicts-benghazi-leaks/

Even USA Today says the emails were changed by the White House.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/05/10/benghazi-emails/2150103/

Now I am reading about the republicans never released the emails. Their is no proof and no named source. No one in any research I have done can prove the republicans released any emails. The White House did.

The Benghazi-related emails released by the White House late May 15 exclude the critical emails between administration officials that were sent during the crucial first two days after the deadly jihadi attack that killed four Americans last September. The 100 pages of partially redacted emails also conclude with a dismissive message from CIA chief David Petraeus. “Frankly, I’d just as soon not use this,” Petraeus said about the heavily edited, four-sentence “talking points” that the White House used to downplay Al Qaeda’s role in the Sep. 11 attack on the poorly protected diplomatic compound. wrote:

http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/16/white-houses-benghazi-email-dump-shows-critical-two-day-gap-cia-objection/

Oh no here is another one.

(Reuters) - Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show. wrote:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/24/us-usa-benghazi-emails-idUSBRE89N02C20121024Ya you can't change that.


So the question is after actually reading media matters Who was the republican that leaked it?

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. wrote:

http://www.ldjackson.net/did-gop-alter-benghazi-emails/

The whole media matters story is all bunk it is total and complete BS. It took me a long time to get the answers but I knew it was BS from beginning. I still plan on more research. But for every story I find that media matters reported I find one that debunks it. I actually read the changes that the so called republicans leaked but they are not that much different.

Forgive my if I put as much faith in The Daily Caller or Political Realities as you do in Media Matters. Political Realities is a right wing blog written by amateurs. Apparently LD Jackson got all his information from The Blaze, Which I don't think too highly of either. The USA Today article is a week older that that of the Huffpost artical, and as I recall it took a day or two to realize the emails had been altered. Your link to the Reuters article is bad.

Here's an article from CBS dated the same day as the Huffpost one.

Quote :

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."

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.

he 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."

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.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57584947/wh-benghazi-emails-have-different-quotes-than-earlier-reported/

Regardless if the republicans changed them or not. The ones the white house released shows that it was edited plus 67 hours of emails are missing.

The decision to keep U.S. personnel in Benghazi with substandard security was made at the highest levels of the State Department by officials who have so far escaped blame over the Sept. 11 attack, according to a review of recent congressional testimony and internal State Department memos by Fox News. Nine months before the assault that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others, State Department Under Secretary Patrick Kennedy signed off on an internal memo that green-lighted the Benghazi operation. wrote:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/22/trail-benghazi-security-lapses-leads-higher-at-state-department-records-show/

The more we find out the worse it gets.