Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(USA Today)   Fox News and CPAC have some questions about these so called Benghazi emails. Ooops, subby means USA Today has some questions   (usatoday.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting, Fox News, CPAC, Benghazi, USA TODAY, Tommy Vietor, Victoria Nuland, Islamic terrorism, Jason Chaffetz  
•       •       •

3082 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 May 2013 at 10:12 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



306 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-05-17 09:32:04 AM  
Except that now there are multiple reports that Republicans had altered some of the emails. What was this guy's source for the emails?

So-called Benghazi emails indeed.
 
2013-05-17 09:38:43 AM  
 
2013-05-17 09:41:11 AM  
Were these questions in the form of a dumbed down infographic?
 
2013-05-17 09:41:27 AM  
Who greenlights these shiatty headlines?
 
2013-05-17 09:43:21 AM  

bdub77: Here's the PDF of the benghazi emails:

http://snsimages.tribune.com/media/acrobat/2013-05/75929909-15142833 .p df


When I import that in Acrobat Professional I see multiple layers, artifacts and pixels.  Very suspicious.
 
2013-05-17 09:48:51 AM  
www.gannett-cdn.com

Are they farking with me or is that naked Bea Arthur? WTF?
 
2013-05-17 09:51:51 AM  
Just start the impeachment already. Nobody is going to get any more outraged about Benghazi. It's like gun control. We have all made up our minds. So roll the dice you pussies, just impeach him and see if it turns out any better than the last time you impeached a POTUS with a (D).
 
2013-05-17 09:52:35 AM  

Wendy's Chili: Who greenlights these shiatty headlines?


it's freeper friday.
 
2013-05-17 09:55:44 AM  

sammyk: Just start the impeachment already. Nobody is going to get any more outraged about Benghazi. It's like gun control. We have all made up our minds. So roll the dice you pussies, just impeach him and see if it turns out any better than the last time you impeached a POTUS with a (D).


They're gambling on the slim possibility of getting a President Joe Biden, like that will somehow work out better for them.
 
2013-05-17 09:57:24 AM  

vernonFL: [www.gannett-cdn.com image 280x156]

Are they farking with me or is that naked Bea Arthur? WTF?


this is what i came in here to discuss. AMERICA DESERVES ANSWERS
 
2013-05-17 10:01:46 AM  

vernonFL: Are they farking with me or is that naked Bea Arthur? WTF?


I thought the same thing.  SMH.

Back on topic, though, a few items:
1. How long between the attack and the Rose Garden speech when Obama called it a terrorist attack?
2. How long between the attack and the commencement of the criminal investigation on who did the attack?
3. How much of this scandal is about the verbiage of the initial explanation and not about the actual response, security, et cetera?

If the GOP wants to take this seriously, maybe they should stop comparing it to 100X worse than every other scandal in history and treat it like what it is: a systematic failure that led to our consulate being vulnerable to deadly terrorist attack.  Is it that they don't want to admit that they're part of the system that failed?
 
2013-05-17 10:14:40 AM  
"The communications raise questions about who called the shots and why, say an analyst and a lawmaker involved in the investigation."

Oh! So basically a Republican said that Obama is bad! This is a major scandal now.
 
2013-05-17 10:16:37 AM  
It was nice to see CBS Evening News call out the GOP on the news last night. Link
 
2013-05-17 10:16:48 AM  

Shvetz: "The communications raise questions about who called the shots and why, say an analyst and a lawmaker involved in the investigation."

Oh! So basically a Republican said that Obama is bad! This is a major scandal now.


NO how dare you put republicans in such light. they aren't saying anything, they are just noticing that questions are being raised. honestly, they weren't even the ones to ask the questions, but now that the questions are floating out there in the ether, they have no choice but to acknowledge them.
 
2013-05-17 10:17:48 AM  

verbaltoxin: sammyk: Just start the impeachment already. Nobody is going to get any more outraged about Benghazi. It's like gun control. We have all made up our minds. So roll the dice you pussies, just impeach him and see if it turns out any better than the last time you impeached a POTUS with a (D).

They're gambling on the slim possibility of getting a President Joe Biden, like that will somehow work out better for them.


To be fair, Joe is white.
 
2013-05-17 10:19:20 AM  

CalamitousCrasher: verbaltoxin: sammyk: Just start the impeachment already. Nobody is going to get any more outraged about Benghazi. It's like gun control. We have all made up our minds. So roll the dice you pussies, just impeach him and see if it turns out any better than the last time you impeached a POTUS with a (D).

They're gambling on the slim possibility of getting a President Joe Biden, like that will somehow work out better for them.

To be fair, Joe is white.


And as Diamond Joe would tell you, "But only from the waist up, brother."
 
2013-05-17 10:21:08 AM  

mrshowrules: bdub77: Here's the PDF of the benghazi emails:

http://snsimages.tribune.com/media/acrobat/2013-05/75929909-15142833 .p df

When I import that in Acrobat Professional I see multiple layers, artifacts and pixels.  Very suspicious.


If you zoom into 500%, it becomes very fuzzy as well.  I don't like this, no sir, I don't like this one bit.
 
2013-05-17 10:21:58 AM  

FlashHarry: Wendy's Chili: Who greenlights these shiatty headlines?

it's freeper friday.


I don't care about the ideology, these "oops" and "oh wait" headlines are the worst.
 
2013-05-17 10:22:09 AM  
Fox News and CPAC have some questions about these so called Benghazi emails. Ooops, subby means USA Today has some questions

Geez, subby.  Keep your right-wing "news" sources straight.
 
2013-05-17 10:22:40 AM  
Another Freeper friday, another week of $1.25 better spent!
 
2013-05-17 10:22:50 AM  
It was all over a youtube video right Dems?  Did Hilary find those responsible (for the video) and bring them to justice yet?
 
2013-05-17 10:25:33 AM  

Wendy's Chili: these "oops" and "oh wait" headlines are the worst.


agreed.
 
2013-05-17 10:28:32 AM  

ExpressPork: It was all over a youtube video right Dems?  Did Hilary find those responsible (for the video) and bring them to justice yet?


you got those dems with that one bro, sick burn!
 
2013-05-17 10:29:57 AM  
Just so we're clear: this all happened AFTER the attacks. None of this could have done anything to save lives.  At worst we're discussing beaurocratic dick-waving and finger pointing.
 
2013-05-17 10:30:03 AM  

thomps: ExpressPork: It was all over a youtube video right Dems?  Did Hilary find those responsible (for the video) and bring them to justice yet?

you got those dems with that one bro, sick burn!


I just got the libby kicked out of my jimmy!
 
2013-05-17 10:30:43 AM  

ExpressPork: It was all over a youtube video right Dems?  Did Hilary find those responsible (for the video) and bring them to justice yet?


Sorry Bud, it's all over except for the screaming.  The GOP was caught red-handed lying about the emails to keep this in the news.  They won't back down of course, but their credibility is completely shot.
 
2013-05-17 10:34:52 AM  
Are their questions presented in 4-color infographic format? If there's clip art on the edges too, that just lends additional gravitas.
 
2013-05-17 10:36:31 AM  

FlashHarry: Wendy's Chili: Who greenlights these shiatty headlines?

it's freeper friday.


Not to be could infused with Theocratic Thursday, Wingnut Wednesday, etc.
 
2013-05-17 10:36:57 AM  
9/14/12 - 11:29am - Office of Congressional Affairs
We need more guidance on benghazi, everyone is asking questions

9/14/12 - 2:39pm - CIA OTA (office of terrorism analysis)
Here's what we've put together given all the info:
- The attacks were inspired by the Cairo protests and evolved into a direct assault on the Consulate. We are still collecting evidence.
- The crowd was a mix of people. We do know that Islamic extremists with ties to AQ participated in the attack.
- The initial report says it was Ansar al-Sharia. The group says its leaders didn't order the attack but that some of its members were involved. 
- The fighters had weapons and tactical knowledge.
- The attacks may have been preplanned, there have been five other Benghazi attacks.
- We are working with the Libyans.

9/14/12 - 2:52pm - NCS? Not sure, maybe state dept
The second bullet says we know for a fact extremists with ties to AQ participated in the attack, which implies complicity in the deaths of the American officers. Do we know this? (for certain implied)

9/14/12 - 3pm - CIA Office of public affairs
OK Here's what I have so far (see 2:39pm for the main bullets)

9/14/12 - 3:19pm - 
Good point, we're not absolutely sure the extremists who were at the event itself had Al Qaeda ties. (In other words, maybe it's just the leaders of the group with AQ ties, and not the individuals in the attack themselves. In other words, some militants went off the reservation and may not have any direct AQ ties, so it wouldn't be an official AQ attack or have any AQ linkage.)

9/14 - 3:27pm
Hey hold on before you release this thing. We have some edits coming.

9/14 - 4:20pm
Hey hold on before you release this thing. There's an active investigation going on.

9/14 - 4:42pm - CIA Office of public affairs
Here's an updated memo from us.
- point 1
- The crowd was a mix of individuals. The investigation is ongoing. We do know that Islamic extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.
- point 3
- point 4
- point 5
- point 6

9/14 - 5:04pm
We're still working on the talking points, editing them for public consumption.

9/14 - 5:09pm
Some people in legal got their hands on these and edited them, but mostly the same memo. Things added like 'Currently available information continues to be evaluated.'

9/14 - 5:10pm
Thanks we'll vet this stuff with the WH now.

9/14 - 5:20pm
Chill everyone the WH is reviewing them.

9/14 6:04pm - from CIA
Chairman Rogers wants to use these talking points on Sunday. Are you guys done yet?

9/14 6:21pm - from Vietor back to OPA
Ok here's what we've got with some mild tweaks.

9/14 6:33 - CIA OPA to State Dept
OK here's what we've got. we vetted them through the WH.

9/14 6:41 - Shawn Turner to OPA
I don't like the language that we warned Cairo of social media calls to demonstrate and try to break into the Embassy, but we did notify them.

6:43pm - CIA OPA 
That change is fine. I'm cc'ing state dept.
some interim banter

7:16 - From State
Do we know for a fact they were extremists? How do we know, who were they? Can we answer those questions, because they will be asked of us.

7:29 - From State
Capitol Hill will drive a truck through this, this is an ongoing investigation and we're making assertions that might not be true and they will accuse the State Dept of not paying attention to CIA warnings.

8:43 - State internal stuff
There is a ton of disinformation, Congress in particular will think it was premeditated.
Bunch of back and forth about the talking points.

9/15 - 10:22pm - CIA OPA - after a bunch of discussions, you edited most of the document, so by 9:30am it read as follows:
- The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by protests in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US Consulate and subsequently its annex.
- This assessment may change as additional information is collected and analyzed and as currently available information continues to be evaluated.
- The investigation is on-going, and the US government is working with Libyan authorities to bring justice to those responsible for the deaths of US citizens.

There's a bunch more back and forth between people and agencies but mostly this is it. A bunch of agencies worked together to draft a legal memo to the media about something that happened 72 hours earlier and which was part of an active investigation at the time. No one wanted to look bad, in particular the State Department, so they heavily edited the documents so it didn't sound like they completely ignored a notice from the CIA that there might be big demonstrations at the consulate in Cairo - which probably happens all the time. And because they don't want the media to know that members of a specific militant group were involved (you know, so they can catch the bad guys) they dumped that part of it too. Also because they couldn't answer specific questions about the militant group, their force, who they were, or any of that - it probably is best to leave that out.

BIG. F*CKING. DEAL.

Congress needs to get over it. Information was provided over time to the media, and now there is a much clearer picture.
 
2013-05-17 10:37:27 AM  

Mentat: ExpressPork: It was all over a youtube video right Dems?  Did Hilary find those responsible (for the video) and bring them to justice yet?

Sorry Bud, it's all over except for the screaming.  The GOP was caught red-handed lying about the emails to keep this in the news.  They won't back down of course, but their credibility is completely shot.


So yes, the administration narrative on the video was true all along?
 
2013-05-17 10:40:34 AM  

vernonFL: [www.gannett-cdn.com image 280x156]

Are they farking with me or is that naked Bea Arthur? WTF?


THIS
 
2013-05-17 10:40:59 AM  

factoryconnection: vernonFL: Are they farking with me or is that naked Bea Arthur? WTF?

I thought the same thing.  SMH.

Back on topic, though, a few items:
1. How long between the attack and the Rose Garden speech when Obama called it a terrorist attack?
2. How long between the attack and the commencement of the criminal investigation on who did the attack?
3. How much of this scandal is about the verbiage of the initial explanation and not about the actual response, security, et cetera?

If the GOP wants to take this seriously, maybe they should stop comparing it to 100X worse than every other scandal in history and treat it like what it is: a systematic failure that led to our consulate being vulnerable to deadly terrorist attack.  Is it that they don't want to admit that they're part of the system that failed?


Every time I read the republican talking points my outrage dissipates before it starts because I keep thinking about the clusterfark of Iraq and the treasonous outing of Valerie Plame.  The lack of investigation and outrage over those affairs has broken my ability to care about Benghazi.
 
2013-05-17 10:41:10 AM  

Cletus C.: Mentat: ExpressPork: It was all over a youtube video right Dems?  Did Hilary find those responsible (for the video) and bring them to justice yet?

Sorry Bud, it's all over except for the screaming.  The GOP was caught red-handed lying about the emails to keep this in the news.  They won't back down of course, but their credibility is completely shot.

So yes, the administration narrative on the video was true all along?


Wait, I've seen this one before. Next you say that Susan Rice should've gone with CNN instead of the CIA intelligence at the time, right?
 
2013-05-17 10:41:48 AM  

PanicMan: Just so we're clear: this all happened AFTER the attacks. None of this could have done anything to save lives.  At worst we're discussing beaurocratic dick-waving and finger pointing.


THIS IS an *yawn* outrage!
 
2013-05-17 10:41:56 AM  
This proves that everybody is *just asking questions.*
 
2013-05-17 10:43:07 AM  

Emposter: FlashHarry: Wendy's Chili: Who greenlights these shiatty headlines?

it's freeper friday.

Not to be could infused with Theocratic Thursday, Wingnut Wednesday, etc.


farking piece of shiat phone.
 
2013-05-17 10:43:25 AM  
USA Today isn't exactly a liberal media site... some of the conservative crap i've seen come out of them makes me think Murdoch owns them secretly
 
2013-05-17 10:43:32 AM  

Fuggin Bizzy: Are their questions presented in 4-color infographic format? If there's clip art on the edges too, that just lends additional gravitas.


Unless there are 27 8×10 color glossy pictures with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each one was, they got nothing. NOTHING, I tells ya!
 
2013-05-17 10:43:54 AM  
I, too, have questions about these Benghazi emails.

Like why is it a month long scandal when Dan Rather reads doctored documents designed to slander the sitting President, resulting in the termination of Rather's career, but the media doesn't seem to care that the GOP blatantly doctored documents to slander the current sitting President?

LIBRULZ MEDIAZ!!!11111
 
2013-05-17 10:44:08 AM  

Shaggy_C: mrshowrules: bdub77: Here's the PDF of the benghazi emails:

http://snsimages.tribune.com/media/acrobat/2013-05/75929909-15142833 .p df

When I import that in Acrobat Professional I see multiple layers, artifacts and pixels.  Very suspicious.

If you zoom into 500%, it becomes very fuzzy as well.  I don't like this, no sir, I don't like this one bit.


Every time you click zoom, you need click enhance.  Normally there is a mirror somewhere in the image which will reveal additional information.
 
2013-05-17 10:45:44 AM  
FTFA- Why did the White House say it made no substantive edits when the e-mails show officials there helped lead the process for changes?

Just how stupid do you have to be to conflate 'leading the process for changes' (which ended up being very minor changes) with 'substantive edits'?
 
2013-05-17 10:46:02 AM  
Were their questions in the form of a piechart?
 
2013-05-17 10:48:00 AM  

mrshowrules: Shaggy_C: mrshowrules: bdub77: Here's the PDF of the benghazi emails:

http://snsimages.tribune.com/media/acrobat/2013-05/75929909-15142833 .p df

When I import that in Acrobat Professional I see multiple layers, artifacts and pixels.  Very suspicious.

If you zoom into 500%, it becomes very fuzzy as well.  I don't like this, no sir, I don't like this one bit.

Every time you click zoom, you need click enhance.  Normally there is a mirror somewhere in the image which will reveal additional information.


By God you're right! I removed some of the artifacts and enhanced. Notice the elvish script on the bottom hand right...


i.imgur.com
 
2013-05-17 10:48:45 AM  

Cletus C.: Mentat: ExpressPork: It was all over a youtube video right Dems?  Did Hilary find those responsible (for the video) and bring them to justice yet?

Sorry Bud, it's all over except for the screaming.  The GOP was caught red-handed lying about the emails to keep this in the news.  They won't back down of course, but their credibility is completely shot.

So yes, the administration narrative on the video was true all along?


That chicken will never love you no matter how much you fark it.  Let it go man, let it go.
 
2013-05-17 10:48:57 AM  

Cletus C.: Mentat: ExpressPork: It was all over a youtube video right Dems?  Did Hilary find those responsible (for the video) and bring them to justice yet?

Sorry Bud, it's all over except for the screaming.  The GOP was caught red-handed lying about the emails to keep this in the news.  They won't back down of course, but their credibility is completely shot.

So yes, the administration narrative on the video was true all along?


Link
 
2013-05-17 10:49:57 AM  

KellyX: USA Today isn't exactly a liberal media site... some of the conservative crap i've seen come out of them makes me think Murdoch owns them secretly


USA Today is the newspaper of record for the barely-literate and the short-attention-spanned.  Considering the way journalism has been shrinking and collapsing and morphing into mere blogging, it doesn't surprise me that it's starting to be seen as an "investigative" organization as well as a mere junior high teaching aid.

Every time I've tried to read USA Today, I don't get any sense of partisanship.  I get a sense of their focus on using the letters "USA" as often as possible in every article, and I feel like I just tried to eat a bowl full of air and convince myself it was minestrone.

This doesn't mean, necessarily, that this story is either true or false.  But it's been the target of the right's "lamestream driveby media" tag so many times that I find it difficult to take the right seriously when they cite it.  They're supposed to stick to fair-and-balanced.
 
2013-05-17 10:50:43 AM  
Ummm... CPAC?

::sigh::
 
2013-05-17 10:51:03 AM  

sammyk: Just start the impeachment already. Nobody is going to get any more outraged about Benghazi. It's like gun control. We have all made up our minds. So roll the dice you pussies, just impeach him and see if it turns out any better than the last time you impeached a POTUS with a (D).


They are waiting until we are closer to 2016, if they do it now the public will forget by then.
 
2013-05-17 10:51:17 AM  

Wendy's Chili: I don't care about the ideology, these "oops" and "oh wait" headlines are the worst.


At least it's not a "Wait, what?" headline.
 
2013-05-17 10:51:59 AM  

bdub77: mrshowrules: Every time you click zoom, you need click enhance.  Normally there is a mirror somewhere in the image which will reveal additional information.

By God you're right! I removed some of the artifacts and enhanced. Notice the elvish script on the bottom hand right...

[i.imgur.com image 775x665]


Hmm... "One scandal to bring them all and in the darkness bin..." *gasp*!!!!
 
Displayed 50 of 306 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report