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

(CBS News) WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama called Thursday for tighter security for U.S. diplomatic facilities to prevent an attack like the one in Benghazi, Libya, last year that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.

The Benghazi attack is a political controversy. Republicans claim the administration watered down the facts in talking points given to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice for television appearances while Obama was running for re-election. 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.

5/17/2013 10:18:21 PM

lol

americans, incuding an ambassador, died due to inaction on the part of this administration. They then covered this up for the election.

obama is guilty of treachery and/or incompetence

5/17/2013 11:00:28 PM

Except that's not true

5/17/2013 11:09:25 PM

oh, the ambassador didn't die? there were not several stand down orders when special ops teams were ready to go aid? the administration didn't even admit that it was an islamic terror group and instead blamed it on a youtube video?

5/17/2013 11:12:03 PM

Nope

5/17/2013 11:12:55 PM

wow.

5/17/2013 11:19:38 PM

Most interesting part of the fiasco is the role of the CIA. Personally I think they were calling all the shots at the "diplomatic post" in Benghazi. Including not wanting extra uniformed troops hanging around their operation. It's too bad the torture (or whatever was occuring there) of brown people is a non issue these days, otherwise we could actually have a real juicy scandal. Instead we are left discussing doctored talking points and emails from different agencies...... yawn.

5/17/2013 11:49:10 PM

that the CIA operates at embassies under diplomatic cover is not a revelation. No doubt, that was going on. That doesn't necessarily mean it was some sort of Gitmo or Abu Ghraib.

5/18/2013 12:05:19 AM

Heh

Quote :

"The Benghazi attack is a political controversy."

Pretty much.

With these doctored GOP quotes out now, both sides think they smell blood and are getting whipped into a frenzy. We can pretty much expect zero legislative productivity (hard to even know what that looks like after the past few years) until someone gasses and gives up.

Sad times we are living in.

5/18/2013 12:15:01 AM

Hell, sucking the oxygen out of DC and ensuring that nothing gets done is usually the most desirable scenario.

Of course, I'd rather the GOP have more chances to totally step on their own cranks and hasten the demise and reorganization of the party.

5/18/2013 12:26:38 AM

^^^but it was more than just a couple of CIA cats hanging out in the lobby, there were 4x as many CIA people at the compound than state department folks. Add on top of that officials have been careful to use language like diplomatic post instead of consulate etc, theyre covering for them. The investigation into the state department hasn't produced anything. There is evidence that the CIA was rounding up weapon to send to Syria or possibly were holding local militia members (let's be real, prob both). I'm not saying this is necessarily abnormal for a "diplomatic post", But if you want to get to the bottom of what happened then grilling the state department is barking up the wrong tree.

[Edited on May 18, 2013 at 12:31 AM. Reason : .]

5/18/2013 12:30:37 AM

Benghazi Embassy was CIA Torture House
http://thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=632592

Another possibility is that they were using the consulate to smuggle arms from Libya to Syria. And maybe torturing people in their free time, just for practice. Glad to see it finally come under more media scrutiny.
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-secret-cia-mission-in-benghazi-2013-5

[Edited on May 18, 2013 at 7:58 AM. Reason : .]

5/18/2013 7:46:03 AM

Smath I guess you forgot congress voted to cut embassy security funding prior to Benghazi as well.

5/18/2013 8:05:15 AM

I want smath and dtownral to keep going.

5/18/2013 3:28:23 PM

Yep

5/18/2013 3:34:39 PM

Quote :

"but it was more than just a couple of CIA cats hanging out in the lobby, there were 4x as many CIA people at the compound than state department folks. Add on top of that officials have been careful to use language like diplomatic post instead of consulate etc, theyre covering for them. "

Officials are careful to use that language because the mission in Benghazi was just that, a diplomatic mission/post. There are very specific things that constitute an Embassy/Chancery or Consulate, Benghazi was neither. It has nothing to do with covering for the Agency.

Lets also be clear that two separate compounds came under attack that night: the US 'consulate' (read: State Department) and the Annex (read: CIA).

5/18/2013 5:57:56 PM

Quote :

"Smath I guess you forgot congress voted to cut embassy security funding prior to Benghazi as well."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/barbara-boxers-claim-that-gop-budgets-hampered-benghazi-security/2013/05/15/d1e295cc-bdb0-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_blog.html

[Edited on May 18, 2013 at 5:59 PM. Reason : ]

5/18/2013 5:58:55 PM

jesus, smath needs to be banned from the soapbox

5/18/2013 6:30:18 PM

?

5/18/2013 8:04:35 PM

Yeah, I'm not seeing the complaint against Mr Smath... He posted a link that directly refutes a democrat talking point of supposed "cut funding," despite the fact that funding has increased.

5/18/2013 8:28:06 PM

Democrat is a noun.

It's either a Democrat's [possessive noun] talking point.

Or a Democratic [adjective] talking point.

5/18/2013 10:04:54 PM

and I care because...

5/19/2013 1:23:25 AM

because you have a credibility problem on this board as it is?

i don't know. not my problem. i'm just letting you know.

5/19/2013 8:25:04 AM

because you're notorious for pointing out the grammatical errors of others by quoting them like this:

Quote :

"a democrat talking point "

?

but sorry to get away from the issue. can anybody summarize the latest on this story? i haven't been paying attention, it seems like politics as usual to me, and i've somewhat lost interest.

5/19/2013 11:04:07 AM

I think what the GOP has been saying is that Obama hates Americans and he wants us all to die? Something along those lines.

5/19/2013 12:30:41 PM

well, duh

5/19/2013 1:58:44 PM

I wouldnt say Obama hates America so much as he just hates anyone that's not Obama.

5/19/2013 3:16:54 PM

so then, yeah, he hates all Americans, hahahaha

sorry

5/19/2013 3:35:22 PM

I don't think he hates America, I just think he dislikes it in its current form, and would like to transform it into his ideal country. Only problem for him is that 1 American /= 360 million Americans, although in his head he knows better than each and every one of them.

5/19/2013 3:47:53 PM

you just described every politician and political commentator ever.

5/19/2013 6:42:15 PM

5/19/2013 9:02:50 PM

I wouldn't call this a scandal. A bumble-fuck maybe, but not a scandal. Between State, CIA, White House and everyone else involved, they all pretty well screwed the pooch. Then they lied about it, and don't kid yourself, they were stacking bullshit chest-high. Obama knew all this and was ok with it if it helped him get re-elected. Now the GOP is trying to exploit it for political gain of their own all while conveniently forgetting their own past blunders and indiscretions. Plenty of scumbaggery to go around. I don't have a dog in this fight, but that's my take on it anyway.

5/20/2013 3:12:51 AM

Obama kills people abroad regularly. who gives a fuck about this, honestly?

5/21/2013 11:04:26 PM

Not the most appropriate thread to put this in, but i couldn't find a better one

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/09/former-guantanamo-detainee-and-his-group-to-be-designated-foreign-terrorist/?intcmp=latestnews

1/9/2014 12:35:36 PM

Is there anyone who doesn't think the current "probe" is nothing but a complete hack-job that's wasting time and money?

5/5/2014 12:15:04 PM

I certainly understand why this issue keeps resurfacing, that at the very least, its politically uncomfortable for the dems.... And potentially doesn't cast H. Clinton in a positive light.
I don't really see what is to be gained from another probe though.

5/5/2014 1:15:43 PM

how about we trade a real probe on Benghazi for a real probe on Iraq and Afghanistan

(and maybe continue to ignore all the other embassy attacks that can't be used for political gain?)

5/5/2014 1:30:48 PM

This particular embassy attack was a media sensation before any administration scandal though.

You had that retard preacher in Florida at the time who had already been in the news a few times; that added fuel to the YouTube speculation.

Not saying that past embassy attacks didn't make the news, but again, it was on every channel (not just Fox) for awhile because of ^.

It turned into a controversy because it was already so visible when they attempted to sweep it under the rug.

At that point it doesn't matter how silly liberals think it is, or how hard they try to label it a non-issue. It's pretty simple to understand that you don't visibly quash stories when they are still popular. You also don't act surprised when someone as important as Susan Rice says something dumb and it goes viral.

Liberals don't move on when Conservatives do any of the above? Looks like business as usual from both sides to me-

(aka, another useless thread)

5/5/2014 2:10:54 PM

You're a trip man

5/5/2014 2:23:23 PM

It was a scandal because Lindsay Graham kept pitching it to anyone who would listen

5/5/2014 2:32:19 PM

So which part am I wrong about?

Straighten me out buddy; Susan Rice didn't say anything dumb? Lets start there-

[Edited on May 5, 2014 at 2:33 PM. Reason : hahaha, lindsey graham. ok, next stupid suggestion / boogeyman]

5/5/2014 2:32:28 PM

i was just talking about how you like to criticize every thread and everyone yeah, mistakes were made, followed-up by blunders, and it wasn't handled all that well. but in the grand scheme of things, it really wasn't a big deal, and plenty of resources have already been wasted.... for what? much worse happens on a daily basis.

5/5/2014 2:35:20 PM

Benghazi and the Bombshell
http://nymag.com/news/features/lara-logan-cbs-news-2014-5/index6.html

Graham kept circulating rumors until people believed it despite his rumors not being based on anything except for his suspicion.

5/5/2014 2:37:36 PM

So given the current rabid state of politics you expect it to just go away?

And Conservatives maybe naively thought certain things would just go away under Bush?

You don't see this as a pattern perhaps?

[Edited on May 5, 2014 at 2:43 PM. Reason : bullet]

5/5/2014 2:38:52 PM

who are you talking to?

5/5/2014 2:42:16 PM

A South-African reporter whose reputation was forged by Bush's wars.

Nice, dtownral.

Let's make this a CBS credibility thread and start over.

If anything Graham did us all a favor by allowing her to implode.

[Edited on May 5, 2014 at 2:43 PM. Reason : dtownral]

5/5/2014 2:43:09 PM

who are you talking to?

5/5/2014 2:43:51 PM

Do you really not know or is this your latest trolling idea?

I liked the one word answer strategy better.

5/5/2014 2:48:17 PM

no

i was confused

your non sequitur style of posting made it hard to tell who you were responding to

you clarified by saying that your second post was in response to me but i couldn't figure out what the hell you were on about in your previous post because it didn't seem related to my post or bullet's post

does that clarify my confusion, when i use a new paragraph for every sentence?

Graham didn't just trick Logan, he tricked all conservatives including yourself. You all bought a fake story.

5/5/2014 2:53:22 PM

You need to define "fake story."

Liberals all ate Susan Rice's "fake story," and plenty are still parroting it.

Maybe unanswered questions on both sides would be better served by this congressional inquiry and quell the retards?

[Edited on May 5, 2014 at 3:01 PM. Reason : this post is meant for dtownral]

5/5/2014 3:00:51 PM