Leaked Benghazi emails were edited

[Mertex]

OMG, this is worse than Watergate!

Yeah, now Democrats need to start some hearings and demand a response from conservatives, why they edited the e-mails. 4 Americans died, and here they are editing e-mails trying to put the blame on the wrong person, when the right person needs to be punished!

I agree, a special prosecutor for the entire brouhaha, if the conservatives manipulated this into an administrative crisis, there should be sunshine.

If the problem is from the administration, there should be sunshine.

Funny, we're in agreement.

I seriously doubt that the problem is from the administration, since Obama had released all the e-mails to Congress some time back. Either ABC misquoted one of them, or was given the wrong info on it. It's pretty clear that Obama is in the clear, even though the rightwing keeps insisting that he isn't.

 

[CaféAuLait]

The Benghazi Emails: Talking Points Changed at State Dept.'s Request

The emails confirm the ABC News report that the so-called "talking points" written by the CIA on the attack underwent extensive revisions – 12 versions – and that substantial changes were made after the State Department expressed concerns.

The early versions of the talking points, drafted entirely by the CIA, included references to the al Qaeda affiliate Ansar al-Sharia and to previous CIA warnings about terror threats in Benghazi. State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland expressed concerns about including those references in the talking points.

In one email, previously reported by ABC News, Nuland said that including the CIA warnings "could be used by Members [of Congress] to beat the State Department for not paying attention to Agency warnings so why do we want to feed that? Concerned …"

After some changes were made, Nuland was still not satisfied.

"These don't resolve all my issues or those of my building leadership," Nuland wrote.

<snip>

Then Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes urged the participants of the email chain to sort out their differences over the talking points with each department's interests in mind. In "a draft note to the DIRECTOR," intelligence officials appear to have identified the State Department as driving the changes to the CIA's drafts.

"The White House cleared quickly, but State has major concerns," an official, whose name was redacted, wrote.

In the end, administration officials signed off on major changes to the talking points. One email includes handwritten edits in which sections of the talking points were crossed out. According to a senior administration official, the handwriting is Morrell's.

The following sections were crossed out and removed from later drafts:

more:

The Benghazi Emails: Talking Points Changed at State Dept.'s Request - ABC News

 

[SuMar]

OMG, this is worse than Watergate!

Still waiting on a body count from Watergate,,,

 

[OriginalShroom]

Yeah, now Democrats need to start some hearings and demand a response from conservatives, why they edited the e-mails. 4 Americans died, and here they are editing e-mails trying to put the blame on the wrong person, when the right person needs to be punished!

I agree, a special prosecutor for the entire brouhaha, if the conservatives manipulated this into an administrative crisis, there should be sunshine.

If the problem is from the administration, there should be sunshine.

Funny, we're in agreement.

I seriously doubt that the problem is from the administration, since Obama had released all the e-mails to Congress some time back. Either ABC misquoted one of them, or was given the wrong info on it. It's pretty clear that Obama is in the clear, even though the rightwing keeps insisting that he isn't.

Where did you ever get the idea that Obama released all the emails some time back?

He just released ~95 of them today, and they paint an ugly painting of the State Dept and Carny lying for months.

 

[Mertex]

The Benghazi Emails: Talking Points Changed at State Dept.'s Request

The emails confirm the ABC News report that the so-called "talking points" written by the CIA on the attack underwent extensive revisions – 12 versions – and that substantial changes were made after the State Department expressed concerns.

The early versions of the talking points, drafted entirely by the CIA, included references to the al Qaeda affiliate Ansar al-Sharia and to previous CIA warnings about terror threats in Benghazi. State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland expressed concerns about including those references in the talking points.

In one email, previously reported by ABC News, Nuland said that including the CIA warnings "could be used by Members [of Congress] to beat the State Department for not paying attention to Agency warnings so why do we want to feed that? Concerned …"

After some changes were made, Nuland was still not satisfied.

"These don't resolve all my issues or those of my building leadership," Nuland wrote.

<snip>

Then Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes urged the participants of the email chain to sort out their differences over the talking points with each department's interests in mind. In "a draft note to the DIRECTOR," intelligence officials appear to have identified the State Department as driving the changes to the CIA's drafts.

"The White House cleared quickly, but State has major concerns," an official, whose name was redacted, wrote.

In the end, administration officials signed off on major changes to the talking points. One email includes handwritten edits in which sections of the talking points were crossed out. According to a senior administration official, the handwriting is Morrell's.

The following sections were crossed out and removed from later drafts:

more:

The Benghazi Emails: Talking Points Changed at State Dept.'s Request - ABC News

And we find out now, through the e-mails, that the reason Petraeus didn't like the talking points that were finally agreed upon by CIA for Susan Rice to deliver, were not because they alluded to the video being the cause, but because they didn't give the video more credit as being the cause.

This is what was being broadcasted:
Among the details, the documents show that then-CIA Director David Petraeus objected to the final version that U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice used five days after the assault
The handwritten note came from Petraeus' deputy. On it, Mike Morell scratched out items eliminated from the CIA's early drafts, including mentions of al-Qaeda
After receiving Morell's edited version, Petraeus wrote: 'Frankly, I'd just as soon not use this'
Read more: 'Frankly, I'd just as soon not use this': Emails show the then CIA-chief David Petraeus objected to Obama administration's version of Benghazi terror attack events | Mail Online

When in reality:


According to CBS News, in a September 15 email, Petraeus wrote that "he doesn't like the talking points and he would 'just assume they not use them... This is not what [Rep.] Ruppersberger asked for. We couldn't even mention the Cairo warning. But it's their call.'"

The "Cairo warning" Petraeus mentioned appears to refer to the following sentence that CBS News reported was added to the original talking points but subsequently removed:

On 10 September we warned of social media reports calling for a demonstration in front of the Embassy [in Cairo] and that jihadists were threatening to break into the Embassy."

As has been extensively reported, the September demonstrations in Cairo, Egypt, were part of a series of global riots and protests in Muslim countries that came in response to increasing awareness of the anti-Islam video. In the days and weeks following the attack, President Obama both referred to the attacks as an "act of terror" and offered criticism of that video for "spark[ing] outrage through the Muslim world."

It was not unreasonable for Petraeus and Obama to cite a link between the attacks and the video - according to the New York Times, the Benghazi attackers told bystanders that "that they were attacking the compound because they were angry about the video." In fact, the original set of talking points prepared by the CIA's Office of Terrorism Analysis stated that the attacks "were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo."

But in reporting on the same Petraeus email, Karl has left out Petraeus' stated reason for disliking the talking points and in one case allowed his interviewer to suggest that Petraeus actually opposed linking the attacks to the video.

Reporting on the Petraeus email, Karl told Fox News' Bill O'Reilly that Petraeus "didn't like these talking points" and said that he "would just as soon not use them." O'Reilly responded that this proved his contention that Petraeus "didn't sign off on this at all" and that it was the White House and State Department "who made these edits and misled the world into thinking it could have been an anti-Islamic video put out by some nut in the USA." From the May 10 edition of O'Reilly's program:
Why Petraeus Didn't Like The Benghazi Talking Points | Blog | Media Matters for America


Leave it to Faux News to muck up the whole thing!

 

[Mertex]

OMG, this is worse than Watergate!

Still waiting on a body count from Watergate,,,

Still waiting for proof that the President was involved in Benghazi cover up, as was Nixon in Watergate!

 

[Mertex]

Looks like whoever leaked this did some editing!!

"The actual e-mail from then-Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes appears to show that whomever leaked it did so in a way that made it appear that the White House was primarily concerned with the State Department's desire to remove references and warnings about specific terrorist groups so as to not bring criticism to the department.'

'Whoever provided those quotes seemingly invented the notion that Rhodes wanted the concerns of the State Department specifically addressed. While Nuland, particularly, had expressed a desire to remove mentions of specific terrorist groups and CIA warnings about the increasingly dangerous assignment, Rhodes put no emphasis at all in his e-mail on the State Department's concerns.
'
CNN exclusive: White House email contradicts Benghazi leaks ? The Lead with Jake Tapper - CNN.com Blogs

Desperate and stupid is still stupid.

The emails were not leaked, they were read and the general content was leaked.

Some of the e-mails were misinterpreted - and were assumed to say the opposite of what they said.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yeah, now Democrats need to start some hearings and demand a response from conservatives, why they edited the e-mails. 4 Americans died, and here they are editing e-mails trying to put the blame on the wrong person, when the right person needs to be punished!

I agree, a special prosecutor for the entire brouhaha, if the conservatives manipulated this into an administrative crisis, there should be sunshine.

If the problem is from the administration, there should be sunshine.

Funny, we're in agreement.

I seriously doubt that the problem is from the administration, since Obama had released all the e-mails to Congress some time back. Either ABC misquoted one of them, or was given the wrong info on it. It's pretty clear that Obama is in the clear, even though the rightwing keeps insisting that he isn't.

I seriously doubt you would know the truth if it slapped you in the face. The major problem with your version, other than the fact that Obama did not release the emails, is that the emails released today actually prove that ABC got the story right.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

OMG, this is worse than Watergate!

Still waiting on a body count from Watergate,,,

Still waiting for proof that the President was involved in Benghazi cover up, as was Nixon in Watergate!

Still waiting for proof that you have a brain.

Tell me something, if he wasn't involved in the cover up, and given the fact that the president is briefed every day with all current intelligence, why did he blame the video when nothing the CIA said even hinted that anyone in Benghazi even knew about the video? Why did he go before the UN two weeks later and blame a video when the CIA had evidence that it was a terrorists attack and had not only warned about the danger, but had actually pointed out other attacks in the same city?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Looks like whoever leaked this did some editing!!

"The actual e-mail from then-Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes appears to show that whomever leaked it did so in a way that made it appear that the White House was primarily concerned with the State Department's desire to remove references and warnings about specific terrorist groups so as to not bring criticism to the department.'

'Whoever provided those quotes seemingly invented the notion that Rhodes wanted the concerns of the State Department specifically addressed. While Nuland, particularly, had expressed a desire to remove mentions of specific terrorist groups and CIA warnings about the increasingly dangerous assignment, Rhodes put no emphasis at all in his e-mail on the State Department's concerns.
'
CNN exclusive: White House email contradicts Benghazi leaks ? The Lead with Jake Tapper - CNN.com Blogs

Desperate and stupid is still stupid.

The emails were not leaked, they were read and the general content was leaked.

Some of the e-mails were misinterpreted - and were assumed to say the opposite of what they said.

A substantial number of the emails were released today, would you like a link so you can read them?

 

[Mertex]

I agree, a special prosecutor for the entire brouhaha, if the conservatives manipulated this into an administrative crisis, there should be sunshine.

If the problem is from the administration, there should be sunshine.

Funny, we're in agreement.

I seriously doubt that the problem is from the administration, since Obama had released all the e-mails to Congress some time back. Either ABC misquoted one of them, or was given the wrong info on it. It's pretty clear that Obama is in the clear, even though the rightwing keeps insisting that he isn't.

Where did you ever get the idea that Obama released all the emails some time back?

I said released to Congress. Do you have trouble reading?


The White House said Wednesday they released the emails-- presented in the same form in which they were provided to members of Congress to dispel following misinformation regarding the exchanges and allegations of a coverup.
“You can now see what the Congress has seen -- collectively these e-mails make clear that the interagency process, including the White House's interactions, were focused on providing the facts as we knew them based on the best information available at the time and protecting an ongoing investigation. After 11 hearings, 25,000 pages of documents, and now this release, we can hopefully spend our time working on what’s important – what we can do together to ensure those serving their nation overseas are better protected than they were last September," White House spokesman Eric Schultz said in a statement.
The documents released do not appear to contain references that would suggest a politically motivated coverup.
Some of the back-and-forth has centered on the email messages among top officials looking to craft "talking points" for members of Congress just a few days after the attack. The White House has accused Republicans of pushing "fabricated" messages to damage the administration.

Under-fire White House releases Benghazi ?talking points? emails

He just released ~95 of them today, and they paint an ugly painting of the State Dept and Carny lying for months.

Nothing of criminal proportion, much to Republican's chagrin.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I seriously doubt that the problem is from the administration, since Obama had released all the e-mails to Congress some time back. Either ABC misquoted one of them, or was given the wrong info on it. It's pretty clear that Obama is in the clear, even though the rightwing keeps insisting that he isn't.

Where did you ever get the idea that Obama released all the emails some time back?

I said released to Congress. Do you have trouble reading?


The White House said Wednesday they released the emails-- presented in the same form in which they were provided to members of Congress to dispel following misinformation regarding the exchanges and allegations of a coverup.
“You can now see what the Congress has seen -- collectively these e-mails make clear that the interagency process, including the White House's interactions, were focused on providing the facts as we knew them based on the best information available at the time and protecting an ongoing investigation. After 11 hearings, 25,000 pages of documents, and now this release, we can hopefully spend our time working on what’s important – what we can do together to ensure those serving their nation overseas are better protected than they were last September," White House spokesman Eric Schultz said in a statement.
The documents released do not appear to contain references that would suggest a politically motivated coverup.
Some of the back-and-forth has centered on the email messages among top officials looking to craft "talking points" for members of Congress just a few days after the attack. The White House has accused Republicans of pushing "fabricated" messages to damage the administration.

Under-fire White House releases Benghazi ?talking points? emails

He just released ~95 of them today, and they paint an ugly painting of the State Dept and Carny lying for months.

Nothing of criminal proportion, much to Republican's chagrin.

Do you understand the difference between "Presented to Congress" and "Released to Congress?"

Would you like a link to the emails so you can quote from them to show us how ABC got them wrong?

 

[Mertex]

I agree, a special prosecutor for the entire brouhaha, if the conservatives manipulated this into an administrative crisis, there should be sunshine.

If the problem is from the administration, there should be sunshine.

Funny, we're in agreement.

I seriously doubt that the problem is from the administration, since Obama had released all the e-mails to Congress some time back. Either ABC misquoted one of them, or was given the wrong info on it. It's pretty clear that Obama is in the clear, even though the rightwing keeps insisting that he isn't.

I seriously doubt you would know the truth if it slapped you in the face. The major problem with your version, other than the fact that Obama did not release the emails, is that the emails released today actually prove that ABC got the story right.

And what do you mean that Obama didn't release the e-mails. Of course he did, to Congress.
Where's the proof that ABC got the story right? The e-mails speak for themselves, if they weren't trying to cast blame, they wouldn't have left a major part of one of them out.

It appears that Petraeus, the adulterer is the one that is lying? Why should we be surprised, he lied to his wife, what's another lie? Besides, he's a Republican, or are you sayiang that Rush Limbaugh was lying? Either way, you lose.

Here, from your hero Rushbo!

Now, Petraeus is claiming that he's saying what he told 'em in the first briefing, but there's no transcript of that. Everybody is of the belief that Petraeus, in the first briefing, went along with the regime and said that it was a spontaneous protest due to the video. I mean, that's what he said. Now he's saying, no, that's not what I said at first, but there's no transcript. We have this from Peter King, congressman, New York. General Petraeus is saying that he always thought it was terrorism. Today is the first day, though, that we are learning that he always thought it was terrorism.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Now back to Petraeus and back to Benghazi and the select committee and why there had better be one. Petraeus is saying, and Peter King from New York, the congressman, is saying that it was terrorism from the get-go, that he always thought it was terrorism. He's not really changing his testimony here, which, of course, is curious because all of us -- you, me -- have been under the belief since September 13th that Petraeus went out and said that it was a video, like everybody else in the regime.
Petraeus Changes His Benghazi Story - The Rush Limbaugh Show

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I seriously doubt that the problem is from the administration, since Obama had released all the e-mails to Congress some time back. Either ABC misquoted one of them, or was given the wrong info on it. It's pretty clear that Obama is in the clear, even though the rightwing keeps insisting that he isn't.

I seriously doubt you would know the truth if it slapped you in the face. The major problem with your version, other than the fact that Obama did not release the emails, is that the emails released today actually prove that ABC got the story right.

And what do you mean that Obama didn't release the e-mails. Of course he did, to Congress.
Where's the proof that ABC got the story right? The e-mails speak for themselves, if they weren't trying to cast blame, they wouldn't have left a major part of one of them out.

It appears that Petraeus, the adulterer is the one that is lying? Why should we be surprised, he lied to his wife, what's another lie? Besides, he's a Republican, or are you sayiang that Rush Limbaugh was lying? Either way, you lose.

Here, from your hero Rushbo!

Now, Petraeus is claiming that he's saying what he told 'em in the first briefing, but there's no transcript of that. Everybody is of the belief that Petraeus, in the first briefing, went along with the regime and said that it was a spontaneous protest due to the video. I mean, that's what he said. Now he's saying, no, that's not what I said at first, but there's no transcript. We have this from Peter King, congressman, New York. General Petraeus is saying that he always thought it was terrorism. Today is the first day, though, that we are learning that he always thought it was terrorism.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Now back to Petraeus and back to Benghazi and the select committee and why there had better be one. Petraeus is saying, and Peter King from New York, the congressman, is saying that it was terrorism from the get-go, that he always thought it was terrorism. He's not really changing his testimony here, which, of course, is curious because all of us -- you, me -- have been under the belief since September 13th that Petraeus went out and said that it was a video, like everybody else in the regime.
Petraeus Changes His Benghazi Story - The Rush Limbaugh Show

Why does everyone on the left listen to Rush? Do you guys realize that he would be off the air if you stopped?

 

[whitehall]

Woodward and Bernstein's "deep throat" informant leaked stuff every day about Nixon's White House to titillate Washington Post readers and nobody knew or apparently cared that W&B no doubt edited them or may have even made the stuff up. The informant never verified the information because he died of natural causes before his identity was revealed 30 years later. The coverup used to be worse than the crime when a republican was president but now all you hear is whining about alleged edited E-mails while we have three or four or even five scandals running at the same time. Watergate was about a 3rd rate burglary but Obama lied and people died.

 

[Yurt]

The Benghazi Emails: Talking Points Changed at State Dept.'s Request

The emails confirm the ABC News report that the so-called "talking points" written by the CIA on the attack underwent extensive revisions – 12 versions – and that substantial changes were made after the State Department expressed concerns.

The early versions of the talking points, drafted entirely by the CIA, included references to the al Qaeda affiliate Ansar al-Sharia and to previous CIA warnings about terror threats in Benghazi. State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland expressed concerns about including those references in the talking points.

In one email, previously reported by ABC News, Nuland said that including the CIA warnings "could be used by Members [of Congress] to beat the State Department for not paying attention to Agency warnings so why do we want to feed that? Concerned …"

After some changes were made, Nuland was still not satisfied.

"These don't resolve all my issues or those of my building leadership," Nuland wrote.

<snip>

Then Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes urged the participants of the email chain to sort out their differences over the talking points with each department's interests in mind. In "a draft note to the DIRECTOR," intelligence officials appear to have identified the State Department as driving the changes to the CIA's drafts.

"The White House cleared quickly, but State has major concerns," an official, whose name was redacted, wrote.

In the end, administration officials signed off on major changes to the talking points. One email includes handwritten edits in which sections of the talking points were crossed out. According to a senior administration official, the handwriting is Morrell's.

The following sections were crossed out and removed from later drafts:

more:

The Benghazi Emails: Talking Points Changed at State Dept.'s Request - ABC News

yep

this thread is simply more desperate lies from the left wingers

 

[Mertex]

Where did you ever get the idea that Obama released all the emails some time back?

I said released to Congress. Do you have trouble reading?


The White House said Wednesday they released the emails-- presented in the same form in which they were provided to members of Congress to dispel following misinformation regarding the exchanges and allegations of a coverup.
“You can now see what the Congress has seen -- collectively these e-mails make clear that the interagency process, including the White House's interactions, were focused on providing the facts as we knew them based on the best information available at the time and protecting an ongoing investigation. After 11 hearings, 25,000 pages of documents, and now this release, we can hopefully spend our time working on what’s important – what we can do together to ensure those serving their nation overseas are better protected than they were last September," White House spokesman Eric Schultz said in a statement.
The documents released do not appear to contain references that would suggest a politically motivated coverup.
Some of the back-and-forth has centered on the email messages among top officials looking to craft "talking points" for members of Congress just a few days after the attack. The White House has accused Republicans of pushing "fabricated" messages to damage the administration.

Under-fire White House releases Benghazi ?talking points? emails

He just released ~95 of them today, and they paint an ugly painting of the State Dept and Carny lying for months.

Nothing of criminal proportion, much to Republican's chagrin.

Do you understand the difference between "Presented to Congress" and "Released to Congress?"

Would you like a link to the emails so you can quote from them to show us how ABC got them wrong?

Ha,ha,ha! So now you are going to use semantics, just like the GOP used regarding "terrorist attacks" not being the same as "act of terror" - you are a piece of work indeed.

It doesn't matter if he presented them or released them. The Congressional investigators were able to view them, it's not like he was keeping the e-mails from them.

The Obama administration had up to now declined to make the documents public and had only let congressional investigators review the documents without making copies.
White House Releases Emails On Benghazi Attack

As for ABC getting it wrong, they need to respond to CNN.

CNN debunks ABC’s Benghazi ‘scoop’ with new email evidence
The actual email, from then-Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes, has turned out to be nothing of the sort, undermining the thrust of ABC’s story and the reasoning behind the latest hearings about Benghazi.

Last Friday, ABC claimed that the White House had rewritten the talking points on the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi twelve times and has scrubbed them of any references to terrorism.


The news organization breathlessly reported that, according to a source, the talking points were massaged to protect the interests of the White House, the CIA and the State Department, in particular those of then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The Weekly Standard also published portions of an email that appeared damning to Clinton.

“The actual e-mail (from Rhodes) appears to show that whomever leaked it did so in a way that made it appear that the White House was primarily concerned with the State Department’s desire to remove references and warnings about specific terrorist groups so as to not bring criticism to the department,” Tapper wrote Tuesday.

Salon’s Joan Walsh wrote, “Significantly, the Rhodes email doesn’t even mention the controversial Benghazi talking points. Reporting by Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard paraphrased Rhodes’ email the same way – to depict him jumping in behind Nuland and protecting the interests of the State Department.”

According to Tapper, “Whoever provided those quotes seemingly invented the notion that Rhodes wanted the concerns of the State Department specifically addressed.”

The source for the ABC and Standard stories also singled out State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland as being particularly demanding with regard to assuring that her leadership would not look negligent or inattentive to warnings signs and signals leading up to the attack. Tapper said that upon viewing the full email chain, Nuland was merely one of many officials expressing concerns about how their agencies would be viewed by the public.

Further, Walsh posited, “Presumably, someone changed Rhodes’ email before leaking it to Karl, but ABC News hasn’t replied to the scoop by Tapper (who used to work there). ”


CNN debunks ABC?s Benghazi ?scoop? with new email evidence | The Raw Story

 

[Mertex]

I seriously doubt you would know the truth if it slapped you in the face. The major problem with your version, other than the fact that Obama did not release the emails, is that the emails released today actually prove that ABC got the story right.

And what do you mean that Obama didn't release the e-mails. Of course he did, to Congress.
Where's the proof that ABC got the story right? The e-mails speak for themselves, if they weren't trying to cast blame, they wouldn't have left a major part of one of them out.

It appears that Petraeus, the adulterer is the one that is lying? Why should we be surprised, he lied to his wife, what's another lie? Besides, he's a Republican, or are you sayiang that Rush Limbaugh was lying? Either way, you lose.

Here, from your hero Rushbo!

Now, Petraeus is claiming that he's saying what he told 'em in the first briefing, but there's no transcript of that. Everybody is of the belief that Petraeus, in the first briefing, went along with the regime and said that it was a spontaneous protest due to the video. I mean, that's what he said. Now he's saying, no, that's not what I said at first, but there's no transcript. We have this from Peter King, congressman, New York. General Petraeus is saying that he always thought it was terrorism. Today is the first day, though, that we are learning that he always thought it was terrorism.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Now back to Petraeus and back to Benghazi and the select committee and why there had better be one. Petraeus is saying, and Peter King from New York, the congressman, is saying that it was terrorism from the get-go, that he always thought it was terrorism. He's not really changing his testimony here, which, of course, is curious because all of us -- you, me -- have been under the belief since September 13th that Petraeus went out and said that it was a video, like everybody else in the regime.
Petraeus Changes His Benghazi Story - The Rush Limbaugh Show

Why does everyone on the left listen to Rush? Do you guys realize that he would be off the air if you stopped?

If Rush Limbaugh hadn't said what he did, you'd be defending him.

 

[Mertex]

Woodward and Bernstein's "deep throat" informant leaked stuff every day about Nixon's White House to titillate Washington Post readers and nobody knew or apparently cared that W&B no doubt edited them or may have even made the stuff up. The informant never verified the information because he died of natural causes before his identity was revealed 30 years later. The coverup used to be worse than the crime when a republican was president but now all you hear is whining about alleged edited E-mails while we have three or four or even five scandals running at the same time. Watergate was about a 3rd rate burglary but Obama lied and people died.

Oh Puleeze! You're just trying to avenge Nixon and Bush, but it ain't working.

Actually, the original saying goes like this:

Bush lied and over 4000 Americans died.

 

[whitehall]

Woodward and Bernstein's "deep throat" informant leaked stuff every day about Nixon's White House to titillate Washington Post readers and nobody knew or apparently cared that W&B no doubt edited them or may have even made the stuff up. The informant never verified the information because he died of natural causes before his identity was revealed 30 years later. The coverup used to be worse than the crime when a republican was president but now all you hear is whining about alleged edited E-mails while we have three or four or even five scandals running at the same time. Watergate was about a 3rd rate burglary but Obama lied and people died.

Oh Puleeze! You're just trying to avenge Nixon and Bush, but it ain't working.

Actually, the original saying goes like this:

Bush lied and over 4000 Americans died.

Oh pulleeze yourself. If anything of substance ever got through the hate filled minds of left wing pop-culture fools they would have a realistic concept of history. 42% of democrats in congress voted to allow Bush to use combat Troops to enforce about a hundred UN sanctions against Saddam and then they sat back and undermined the mission like a bunch of political saboteurs. Harry Truman lost a little more than 4,000 Americans in Korea. He lost 55,000 and he never sought nor did he receive congressional approval for the adventure. LBJ used a fake crisis to get us into Vietnam and the conflict was run so poorly that he surrendered in a tearful resignation after the American victory of Tet just when we needed leadership. Bill Clinton authorized the bombing of a defenseless country in Europe to cover up for his peculiar sexual adventures without congressional approval. The point is that Watergate was about a 3rd rate burglary. Benghazi was about negligent homicide.