GOP Sources Altered Benghazi E-Mails To Suggest A Cover-Up, Reporter Confirms

[Mott the Hoople]

Exactly and then they repeat the lies and send emails on the lies and then post them on Facebook. I don't know how many times I have posted snopes articles to refute the crap my relatives post!

I get on my friends and family when they talk pottylicks on facebook and such. I send them messages, often with links to JPP, and tell them it's not polite to discuss politics on FB.

One of the ways you get wingnuts to shut up around here is you accuse them of being southerners and not loyal Buckeyes.

[PostmodernProphet]

(and keep in mind im paraphrasing here)

code word for "making shit up as we go"......

[NOVA]

2 witnesses??? WOW!!! A REPO THAT CAN COUNT THAT MUCH??? who were they? more repo rumors? but i guess its PINHEADS like us that actually want to LOOK UP THE INFO FOR OURSELVES and refute EVIDENCE.

hey - ill be the first to admit i say something wrong. prove it and i will

Charlene Lamb Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Programs in the Bureau of Diplomatic Security at the Department of State already testified under oath that
funding had nothing to do with the decision to not increase security at the Embassy or Consulate......in the first hearing

Forget right now who it was this week.....don't you pinheads watch the hearings.....???
so that dog ain't gonna hunt....

[NOVA]

when i heard it, it was in the context of (and keep in mind im paraphrasing here) - 'give everyone a one-time 10,000 dollars to use for hospital visits.'

something like that... may have been talking in conversation with vouchers. i truly dont remember at this time. wish i wrote the link down though

So....you really don't know wtf you're talking about.

[Phantasmal]

I get on my friends and family when they talk pottylicks on facebook and such. I send them messages, often with links to JPP, and tell them it's not polite to discuss politics on FB.

One of the ways you get wingnuts to shut up around here is you accuse them of being southerners and not loyal Buckeyes.

I love it, pottylicks

[noneya_bizniz]

code word for "making shit up as we go"......

how about this making shit up?

13 BENGHAZI'S UNDER BUSH'S WATCH:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-ce...b_3246847.html

oh wait... we cant use huffington post because its not FAUX NEWS... even though the deaths stated on this website under bush's watch were REAL AMERICANS GETTING KILLED YOU FUCKING NAZI!!!

go live in a different country if you hate america soo much you god-damned mouthbreather!!!!!!!

[noneya_bizniz]

So....you really don't know wtf you're talking about.

at least im looking online for FACTS not just parroting fox and saying 'i havent heard of it so it doesnt exist'

keep hating america, youll win someone over some day

[NOVA]

Oh and conservatives would never tell us that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and were going to attack us. Conservatives would never, ever say anything like that!

Democrats had been telling us just that for 10 years, as did the Washington Times and Washington Post, so I see no reason why conservatives shouldn't ....

[NOVA]

at least im looking online for FACTS not just parroting fox and saying 'i havent heard of it so it doesnt exist'

keep hating america, youll win someone over some day

Oh yeah, I saw it on the internet so its gotta be true.........and of course you look on the 'huffingtonpost'.....

and whats this, 'i havent heard of it so it doesnt exist' ?.....whats that supposed to mean ? Are you having hallucinations ?

[PostmodernProphet]

how about this making shit up?

13 BENGHAZI'S UNDER BUSH'S WATCH:

which one of those did Bush say was caused by a movie?......

go live in a different country if you hate america soo much you god-damned mouthbreather!!!!!!!

but I don't hate America....I just hate the liberals trying to destroy it.....

[PostmodernProphet]

at least im looking online for FACTS not just parroting fox and saying 'i havent heard of it so it doesnt exist'

keep hating america, youll win someone over some day

dude, you need to get over it.....2008 is over, you won.....you don't need to keep up the lies.....

[USFREEDOM911]

Oh yeah, I saw it on the internet so its gotta be true.........and of course you look on the 'huffingtonpost'.....

and whats this, 'i havent heard of it so it doesnt exist' ?.....whats that supposed to mean ? Are you having hallucinations ?

[Jarod]

Still the questions remains, is it not still terrorism if they were motivated by a video?

[Howey]

Charlene Lamb Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Programs in the Bureau of Diplomatic Security at the Department of State already testified under oath that
funding had nothing to do with the decision to not increase security at the Embassy or Consulate

No, it didn't. And increased funding wouldn't have helped either, thanks to the republicans and democrats.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...31f9_blog.html

Boxer would have been on firmer ground if she had echoed the broad point made by the Accountability Review Board that both Republicans and Democrats in Congress repeatedly have failed to provide the State Department with the requested resources. Instead she narrowly tailored her critique to the two-year period when Republicans were in control of the House, failing to mention that Democrats have also “cut” the president’s budget request. Thus her remarks lacked significant context.

Indeed, it is almost as if Boxer is living in a time warp, repeating talking points from six months ago that barely acknowledge the fact that extensive investigations have found little evidence of her claim that “there was not enough security because the budget was cut.”

State Department officials repeatedly told Congress that a lack of funds was not an issue. Instead, security was hampered because of bureaucratic issues and management failures. In other words, given the internal failures, no amount of money for the State Department likely would have made a difference in this tragedy.

And when are you going to stop the lies about Charlene Lamb?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...3684_blog.html

When asked whether the State Department was indeed watching the Benghazi attacks in real time, a State official responded, “Nobody at the Department had the ability to watch either of the attacks in real time.”

According to official accounts, the assault on the large U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi started around 9:40 p.m. on the night of Sept. 11. The assailants barged through the facility’s pedestrian gate, torched some security barracks with diesel fuel and then turned their attention to the compound’s main building, according to Lamb’s testimony before Congress.

Just who was doing all that storming; what they were doing before the attack; whether there were protesters in their midst — all of that is a matter of intense dispute with political implications. Administration official said after the attacks that they may have been associated with protests over an anti-Muslim video; critics responded that no, this was strictly a terrorist attack.

There was never any real-time video of this early portion of the Benghazi hostilities. No one in Washington — State Department, White House, whatever — was watching live feeds of the gate-crashing.

An administration official explains: “The Benghazi compound had a CCTV [closed-circuit television] system. Meaning, a system of cameras on the compound. Those cameras could be monitored from the [Tactical Operations Center, TOC], which is one of the structures on the compound.. . . Those images could not be seen anywhere outside the TOC, let alone outside Benghazi. The footage from those cameras is recorded and stored for a period. The footage from the attack was not in USG [U.S. government] hands until later in September.”

Hannity, that FOX pig and America hater, took the misunderstood words of a low level staffer and distorted them to create a lie. That is treason, isn't it?

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/01...-falseh/192380

That night on Fox News' Hannity, Liz Cheney seized on Lamb's testimony, but characterized it correctly:

CHENEY: Today, we learned from Charlene Lamb under oath that she followed, you know, the diplomatic security official, that she followed what was going on, minute by minute. She was following it in real time. So the administration knew in real time, there wasn't a mob, they knew in real time that this was a well-coordinated attack. They knew in real time that it involved heavy weaponry, this was clearly a terrorist attack and the American people have clearly, as you've said, been lied to.

The following morning, October 11, Jennifer Rubin posted a video of Cheney's Hannity appearance in a post headlined "Real-time Libya: Who knew what, when?" In that post, Rubin claimed (citing no other sources) that Lamb had watched a "real-time video" of the attack -- something neither Lamb nor Cheney had said:

Seriously, something doesn't make sense. Do we think no one else ever got the benefit of that information that mid-level bureaucrat Charlene Lamb had? This was the most urgent issue of the moment in which everyone (the White House, the public, the media) wanted to know what happened in Benghazi. So why not look at the real-time video? Why not ask Lamb what she saw and heard?

That next day, October 12, CNBC host Lawrence Kudlow wrote in his syndicated column that "State Department officials saw the Benghazi attack in real time." [emphasis in original] Later that night on Fox News, Hannity made his first reference to "real time video" of the attack: "The president knew within 24 hours what the truth was, and what I am told, they actually saw this in real-time. There is a video, real-time, of everything that went down in Benghazi."


This was verified by Hillary Clinton, btw...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...al-time-video/

In today’s testimony before a House committee, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was asked point-blank about all of this video business. She said, “There was no monitor, there was no real time.”

That’s not to say that the State Department wasn’t getting real-time updates on the situation at the Benghazi compound. Indeed, it was. But they were coming via telephone, not “real-time video.”

Clinton’s disavowal of real-time video was strong, airtight and in no way sufficient to ever supplant the notion that top State officials grabbed a bag of popcorn and kicked back with some Benghazi TV.

which one of those did Bush say was caused by a movie?......

No...Bush did far worse...

WASHINGTON - In the immediate aftermath of the 2001 anthrax attacks, White House officials repeatedly pressed FBI Director Robert Mueller to prove it was a second-wave assault by Al Qaeda, but investigators ruled that out, the Daily News has learned.

After the Oct. 5, 2001, death from anthrax exposure of Sun photo editor Robert Stevens, Mueller was "beaten up" during President Bush's morning intelligence briefings for not producing proof the killer spores were the handiwork of terrorist mastermind Osama Bin Laden, according to a former aide.

"They really wanted to blame somebody in the Middle East," the retired senior FBI official told The News.

On October 15, 2001, President Bush said, "There may be some possible link" to Bin Laden, adding, "I wouldn't put it past him." Vice President Cheney also said Bin Laden's henchmen were trained "how to deploy and use these kinds of substances, so you start to piece it all together."

But by then the FBI already knew anthrax spilling out of letters addressed to media outlets and to a U.S. senator was a military strain of the bioweapon. "Very quickly [Fort Detrick, Md., experts] told us this was not something some guy in a cave could come up with," the ex-FBI official said. "They couldn't go from box cutters one week to weapons-grade anthrax the next."jmeek@nydailynews.com

[NOVA]

Homo says....."And when are you going to stop the lies about Charlene Lamb?"

Strawman bullshit as usual.....an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition without ever having actually refuted the original position.

We're talking about Charlene Lamb's SWORN TESTIMONY in the hearings and you're babbling about what some talking heads are saying on tv about a
different subject.......

Are you trying to "misrepresent" what the issue in question is ?
Are you trying to "to create the illusion of having refuted a position by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition ?

Of course you are.....so in the end you got nothing.