Leaked Benghazi emails were edited

[Quantum Windbag]

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

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

Quick question, oh mighty idiot, if Obama actually released the emails to Congress why are they still asking for the emails? Did they not get the same memo you did?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

I dare you to show one post where I defended Rush.

 

[OriginalShroom]

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.

People seem to forget that the whole Watergate thing lasted nearly two years.

Talk about, as Carney said "It happened a long time ago".

 

[Lakhota]

Leaked Benghazi emails were edited

Yep, and those responsible must be held accountable.

Republicans Altered Benghazi Emails, CBS News Report Claims

 

[Yurt]

they were not edited

they reflected clearly the emails released by the WH

 

[Dot Com]

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

can't argue w/ oxy(contin)Rush All the rw'ers take his word as the gospel.

 

[whitehall]

Rush is the problem? Too much information for the left wing pop-culture educated public to process? When will the left ever quit whining about information that is (still?) available to the American public?

 

[Mertex]

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.

I dare you to show one post where I defended Rush.

Most conservatives do, that you don't is amazing. But, that's besides the point, he's not the only one that is claiming that Petraeus at first gave credit to the video, and now conservatives want to act like he didn't.

 

[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

can't argue w/ oxy(contin)Rush All the rw'ers take his word as the gospel.

Except now, what Rush is saying is working against them, so now they're not wanting to associate with him!

 

[whitehall]

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

Well duh, everything is edited. The best comparison between Hussein's current crisis is Dick Nixon's's Watergate. Did anybody care if Woodward and Bernstein edited breathless revelations from the informant they didn't reveal for 30 years? This is the coverup of more than a 3rd rate burglary. Obama lied and people died.

 

[Mertex]

I guess Republican/conservatives can fool themselves into thinking Benghazi is going to provide some political assistance, but the general public doesn't!


The National Memo » Voters Believe Hillary On Benghazi, Not Fazed By GOP Conspiracy Theories

 

[dilloduck]

I guess Republican/conservatives can fool themselves into thinking Benghazi is going to provide some political assistance, but the general public doesn't!


The National Memo » Voters Believe Hillary On Benghazi, Not Fazed By GOP Conspiracy Theories

The general public is stupid.

 

[Mertex]

I guess Republican/conservatives can fool themselves into thinking Benghazi is going to provide some political assistance, but the general public doesn't!


The National Memo » Voters Believe Hillary On Benghazi, Not Fazed By GOP Conspiracy Theories

The general public is stupid.

Not as stupid as the ones that one to make something out of nothing!

 

[Yurt]

and here another dozeneths lib thread about this same issue

 

[mudwhistle]

What's hilarious is how the GOP is acting SHOCKED! SHOCKED! even though they had the talking points and the edited talking points since February.

When there was no there-there, they simply had to go back and try to find something outrageous even if it's still not there.

When there is wrongdoing we should know about it, but this case is no different than the 64 attacks on embassies and consulates and American diplomats under the Bush administration.

We had about that many attacks in one day last September. Why so smug? Just about every consulate or embassy in the ME came under attack.

 

[Mertex]

and here another dozeneths lib thread about this same issue

There's more than a dozen from the right - all trying to make it into something!

 

[Mertex]

What's hilarious is how the GOP is acting SHOCKED! SHOCKED! even though they had the talking points and the edited talking points since February.

When there was no there-there, they simply had to go back and try to find something outrageous even if it's still not there.

When there is wrongdoing we should know about it, but this case is no different than the 64 attacks on embassies and consulates and American diplomats under the Bush administration.

We had about that many attacks in one day last September. Why so smug? Just about every consulate or embassy in the ME came under attack.

Conservatives want to make Benghazi "special" - because it wasn't one attacked under Bush, and because they are desperate!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

I dare you to show one post where I defended Rush.

Most conservatives do, that you don't is amazing. But, that's besides the point, he's not the only one that is claiming that Petraeus at first gave credit to the video, and now conservatives want to act like he didn't.

There is no evidence outside the imaginations of conspiracy nuts that Petreaus had anything to do with it. I am not a conspiracy nut, I live in the real world.

 

[Mertex]

I dare you to show one post where I defended Rush.

Most conservatives do, that you don't is amazing. But, that's besides the point, he's not the only one that is claiming that Petraeus at first gave credit to the video, and now conservatives want to act like he didn't.

There is no evidence outside the imaginations of conspiracy nuts that Petreaus had anything to do with it. I am not a conspiracy nut, I live in the real world.

That Petraeus had "anything" to do with it? What do you mean by "anything"? Are you claiming that he had nothing to do with the decision on the "talking points"? There is evidence in the e-mails to suggest that he was upset because they took out the statement that made reference to the Cairo protest/video. And it is a known fact that he was aware of what the talking points were, so your claim that he didn't have "anything" to do with is seems a bit suspect.

And, if you believe that Obama had anything to do with a presumed cover-up you don't live in the real world.

 

[tinydancer]

Most conservatives do, that you don't is amazing. But, that's besides the point, he's not the only one that is claiming that Petraeus at first gave credit to the video, and now conservatives want to act like he didn't.

There is no evidence outside the imaginations of conspiracy nuts that Petreaus had anything to do with it. I am not a conspiracy nut, I live in the real world.

That Petraeus had "anything" to do with it? What do you mean by "anything"? Are you claiming that he had nothing to do with the decision on the "talking points"? There is evidence in the e-mails to suggest that he was upset because they took out the statement that made reference to the Cairo protest/video. And it is a known fact that he was aware of what the talking points were, so your claim that he didn't have "anything" to do with is seems a bit suspect.

And, if you believe that Obama had anything to do with a presumed cover-up you don't live in the real world.

Link to your claims?