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.

(Talking Points Memo)   WaPo fact checker gives three "Pinocchios" to the doctored Benghazi emails claim. Proving once and for all that we cannot trust a single soul within a 50 mile radius of D.C   (livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 423
    More: Interesting, District of Columbia, Benghazi, fact checking, Capitol Hill Republicans, Benghazi emails, emails, Washington Post, ABC White House  
•       •       •

10910 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 May 2013 at 10:22 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-22 09:28:39 AM  
Will we be seeing conservatives defending.... nay, hailing the efforts of the liberal, in-the-tank, lamestream MSM media like the WaPo and broadcast news outlets?  Someone check the weather report for Hell!

Also, Obama Administration, I am dissapoint.
 
2013-05-22 09:33:35 AM  

factoryconnection: Will we be seeing conservatives defending.... nay, hailing the efforts of the liberal, in-the-tank, lamestream MSM media like the WaPo and broadcast news outlets?  Someone check the weather report for Hell!

Also, Obama Administration, I am dissapoint.


That article doesn't say what you think it says.  He gave the Pinocchios to the White house.
 
2013-05-22 09:43:57 AM  
"Republicans would have been foolish to seriously doctor e-mails that the White House at any moment could have released (and eventually did)," wrote Kessler.

Basically hinges on the fact that Republicans wouldn't do something foolish.  That's some fine fact checking their Lou.
 
2013-05-22 09:44:12 AM  
Ultimately, Kessler adds, "[t]he burden of proof lies with the accuser....we see little evidence that much was at play here besides imprecise wordsmithing or editing errors by journalists."

Yeah, about what I figured. But a lot of people made a lot of hay with the editing error versions, so there's that too.
All of this is one round of stupid heaped on top of the last.
 
2013-05-22 09:57:02 AM  

factoryconnection: Will we be seeing conservatives defending.... nay, hailing the efforts of the liberal, in-the-tank, lamestream MSM media like the WaPo and broadcast news outlets?  Someone check the weather report for Hell!


point of fact: the WaPo is a rightwing paper.
 
2013-05-22 09:57:47 AM  

James!: That article doesn't say what you think it says. He gave the Pinocchios to the White house.


Exactly.  The LSM is proving its cred while detracting from the Obama Administration's defense on this matter.

unlikely: All of this is one round of stupid heaped on top of the last.


Yeah none of this actually addresses embassy security or funding, just finger-pointing and ego-bruise salving and whatnot.
 
2013-05-22 10:01:12 AM  

unlikely: Ultimately, Kessler adds, "[t]he burden of proof lies with the accuser....we see little evidence that much was at play here besides imprecise wordsmithing or editing errors by journalists."

Yeah, about what I figured. But a lot of people made a lot of hay with the editing error versions, so there's that too.
All of this is one round of stupid heaped on top of the last.


Was it made clear that the "edited versions" were 2nd hand and not direct quotes from the emails? Or was it left vague to mislead?

I think the fact checker is ignoring intent and looking at semantics here which happens all the time
 
2013-05-22 10:05:10 AM  

FlashHarry: point of fact: the WaPo is a rightwing paper.


Wait... what?  Where does that put the WaTimes and the Examiner?
 
2013-05-22 10:18:25 AM  

factoryconnection: Yeah none of this actually addresses embassy security or funding, just finger-pointing and ego-bruise salving and whatnot.


That's how you can tell people are completely full of sh*t on this issue. If they actually cared about the lack of adequate security that resulted in the deaths of four Americans, all these committees would be focusing on ensuring there is proper security.

But they're more concerned about the finger pointing for the purposes of electoral politics.
 
2013-05-22 10:24:33 AM  
See, this just what the Bilderbergers want you to think! It's a coverup of the coverup!
 
2013-05-22 10:25:02 AM  
So if I'm reading this right, they're saying the white house is lying because there's no way republicans would do something like make up a statement to make someone else look bad?
 
2013-05-22 10:25:29 AM  

zedster: unlikely: Ultimately, Kessler adds, "[t]he burden of proof lies with the accuser....we see little evidence that much was at play here besides imprecise wordsmithing or editing errors by journalists."

Yeah, about what I figured. But a lot of people made a lot of hay with the editing error versions, so there's that too.
All of this is one round of stupid heaped on top of the last.

Was it made clear that the "edited versions" were 2nd hand and not direct quotes from the emails? Or was it left vague to mislead?

I think the fact checker is ignoring intent and looking at semantics here which happens all the time


That's what the WaPo fact checker does when faced with a right-wing claim to rate. They have to find some way to make it equal to whatever left-wing claim they just rated.
 
2013-05-22 10:26:26 AM  

factoryconnection: FlashHarry: point of fact: the WaPo is a rightwing paper.

Wait... what?  Where does that put the WaTimes and the Examiner?


The Post is right-leaning, the Examiner is right-wing, and the Times should not be called a newspaper.
 
2013-05-22 10:26:38 AM  
What a Pinocchio looks like
img.gawkerassets.com
 
2013-05-22 10:27:54 AM  
3 "Pinocchios" for the burden of proof being placed on the wrong person?  You're the damned fact checker, when you assume that title, the burden of proof is always on you.
 
2013-05-22 10:28:28 AM  

Codenamechaz: So if I'm reading this right, they're saying the white house is lying because there's no way republicans would do something like make up a statement to make someone else look bad?


Basically, they're saying "there isn't enough evidence to prove the Republicans personally changed any of the information that was released," therefore this is a 3-Pinocchio.

I don't know how you get to 3-Pinocchio on "I dunno." And they're being willfully ignorant if they ignore the idea that released summaries came from the Republicans prior to the emails' release.
 
2013-05-22 10:28:38 AM  

factoryconnection: FlashHarry: point of fact: the WaPo is a rightwing paper.

Wait... what?  Where does that put the WaTimes and the Examiner?


I hope for your sake you aren't as dim as you sound in this post.
 
2013-05-22 10:28:55 AM  
Republicans really don't have a leg to stand on. Benghazi was tragic, and there was probably a lapse in judgment at multiple levels of management that led to this tragic event, but it was Bush's administration that oversaw the demolition of the WTC towers.

You want to know what the elephant in the middle of the room is? It's the Republicans' legacy.
 
2013-05-22 10:28:58 AM  
images.sodahead.com
 
2013-05-22 10:29:09 AM  
Has anyone determined where Obama was and what he was doing between the time he was told the embassy was under attack and the time the ambassador was murdered?

I heard the question asked, but I don't remember getting an answer.

I ask because we were treated to those photos of Obama in the Situation Room being very presidential-looking when bin Ladin was being killed.  Are there any photos of him dealing with the embassy murders in a similar manner?
 
2013-05-22 10:29:47 AM  

Codenamechaz: So if I'm reading this right, they're saying the white house is lying because there's no way republicans would do something like make up a statement to make someone else look bad?


Yep.

The logic is weak with that one.
 
2013-05-22 10:30:32 AM  

ikanreed: You're the damned fact checker, when you assume that title, the burden of proof is always on you.


[citation needed]

/Sorry.
//I sometimes can't resist these things.
///I have a problem.
 
2013-05-22 10:30:39 AM  
This is actually why Ron Paul should have been elected. Americans would not have even been in that country.

Too bad you all did not think this through. It is unfortunate Dr. Paul will be too old to run for office next time around. I told all my friends in the USA to write him in.
 
2013-05-22 10:30:47 AM  

Codenamechaz: So if I'm reading this right, they're saying the white house is lying because there's no way republicans would do something like make up a statement to make someone else look bad?


Basically the "no one could be this stupid" defense.  You could use this defense retroactively:

-Nixon would not have been so stupid as to record his meetings about bugging the hotel rooms
-Certainly Bush wouldn't have been so stupid as to invade Iraq unless they were sure where the WMD's were
-Reagan would never have been dumb enough to authorize giving arms to terrorists for hostages
 
2013-05-22 10:31:29 AM  

Phinn: Has anyone determined where Obama was and what he was doing between the time he was told the embassy was under attack and the time the ambassador was murdered?

I heard the question asked, but I don't remember getting an answer.

I ask because we were treated to those photos of Obama in the Situation Room being very presidential-looking when bin Ladin was being killed.  Are there any photos of him dealing with the embassy murders in a similar manner?


Got any photos of where the Republicans were when they were cutting funding for embassy security?
 
2013-05-22 10:32:14 AM  
The Whitehouse controlled the narrative on Libya long enough...   long enough to get past the election.

All of the Whitehouse stories revolve around one issue.   Controlling the narrative.   Control the message.
The tactics are varied, but they seem to use any and all they have in the bag.

IRS,  AP,  Libya....  they really tried every trick in the bag.
 
2013-05-22 10:32:35 AM  

Phinn: Has anyone determined where Obama was and what he was doing between the time he was told the embassy was under attack and the time the ambassador was murdered?


Do we know how much time passed between one and the other?

If you start there, you may be able to find out what he was doing.
 
2013-05-22 10:32:36 AM  
I spent a year in embassy security in a high-risk country. I've seen it done right, I've seen it done wrong, and I'm here to say that if 150 guys with RPGs and AKs can seal off the roads to your compound and not attract the attention of the QRF, a lot of people are about to die and your intel guy should probably be near the front of that line.
 
2013-05-22 10:33:08 AM  

netcentric: The Whitehouse controlled the narrative on Libya long enough...   long enough to get past the election.

All of the Whitehouse stories revolve around one issue.   Controlling the narrative.   Control the message.
The tactics are varied, but they seem to use any and all they have in the bag.

IRS,  AP,  Libya....  they really tried every trick in the bag.


Assuming you believe all of it is a conspiracy because it agrees with your pre-conceived worries and fears about this administration.
 
2013-05-22 10:33:24 AM  
It doesn't sound from the article like they proved anything.  If someone had the original emails, why were the quotes "poorly transcribed" in the first place?  And the poor transcription was pretty blatant when you compare to the original emails.  In some cases, it changed the entire meaning of the emails.  At best, a reporter screwed up horribly and is trying to cover his back side.  At worst, someone knowingly fed him false information and is now trying to shift the blame to the Administration.  This whole thing has stung the Republicans pretty hard to the point where the top guys are starting to back off.  This isn't going to get them their credibility back.
 
2013-05-22 10:33:59 AM  

Vodka Zombie: Phinn: Has anyone determined where Obama was and what he was doing between the time he was told the embassy was under attack and the time the ambassador was murdered?

Do we know how much time passed between one and the other?

If you start there, you may be able to find out what he was doing.


Why don't you just tell me where he was, since you seem to know?
 
2013-05-22 10:34:38 AM  

spentshells: This is actually why Ron Paul should have been elected. Americans would not have even been in that country.

Too bad you all did not think this through. It is unfortunate Dr. Paul will be too old to run for office next time around. I told all my friends in the USA to write him in.


I know Ron Paul is famously against military adventurism, but I wasn't aware he doesn't even want embassies/consulates in other countries.
 
2013-05-22 10:34:51 AM  
FTA: Republicans would have been foolish to seriously doctor e-mails that the White House at any moment could have released

Why didn't the WaPo simply compare the text of what the Whitehouse released to the text the Republicans released?  Any discrepancy would be proof the texts were altered. 

 
It seems this would be a more authoritative methodology for determining if the texts were altered.   Instead the fact-checker basically says, "Republicans wouldn't be THAT dumb".
 
2013-05-22 10:34:59 AM  

Phinn: Why don't you just tell me where he was, since you seem to know?


He was out destroying the very fabric of America, duh.
 
2013-05-22 10:35:12 AM  

Phinn: I ask because we were treated to those photos of Obama in the Situation Room being very presidential-looking when bin Ladin was being killed. Are there any photos of him dealing with the embassy murders in a similar manner?


Why would he have dealt with to wildly different situations in a similar manner? The former was a carefully planned, high-risk mission that he approved. The latter was a surprise attack on a US consulate.
 
2013-05-22 10:35:23 AM  
Lying liars lying for liars.
 
2013-05-22 10:35:43 AM  
This means Sarah Palin is automatically President, and Obama has to walk down Pennsylvania Ave., beating a drum that goes, "FART!" each time he hits it.
 
2013-05-22 10:35:59 AM  

Phinn: Vodka Zombie: Phinn: Has anyone determined where Obama was and what he was doing between the time he was told the embassy was under attack and the time the ambassador was murdered?

Do we know how much time passed between one and the other?

If you start there, you may be able to find out what he was doing.

Why don't you just tell me where he was, since you seem to know?


Look, we're not going to do all of your research for you. If, 8 months after it happened, you don't know the timeline of the attack even in general terms, why are you even commenting on it?
 
2013-05-22 10:36:04 AM  

Mentat: It doesn't sound from the article like they proved anything.  If someone had the original emails, why were the quotes "poorly transcribed" in the first place?  And the poor transcription was pretty blatant when you compare to the original emails.  In some cases, it changed the entire meaning of the emails.  At best, a reporter screwed up horribly and is trying to cover his back side.  At worst, someone knowingly fed him false information and is now trying to shift the blame to the Administration.  This whole thing has stung the Republicans pretty hard to the point where the top guys are starting to back off.  This isn't going to get them their credibility back.


What does credibility have to do with the republican party?  In my lifetime, credibility has never been something they've had nor something they've sought.
 
2013-05-22 10:36:05 AM  

FlashHarry: factoryconnection: Will we be seeing conservatives defending.... nay, hailing the efforts of the liberal, in-the-tank, lamestream MSM media like the WaPo and broadcast news outlets?  Someone check the weather report for Hell!

point of fact: the WaPo is a rightwing paper.


Not even close.

I dont know where the hell people get this unless they're using the conservative strategy of declaring someone impure and therefore their polar opposite because of a couple of statements inconsistent with their ideology.
 
2013-05-22 10:36:25 AM  

Phinn: Vodka Zombie: Phinn: Has anyone determined where Obama was and what he was doing between the time he was told the embassy was under attack and the time the ambassador was murdered?

Do we know how much time passed between one and the other?

If you start there, you may be able to find out what he was doing.

Why don't you just tell me where he was, since you seem to know?


What the hell in anything I said would lead you to believe that I "seem to know?"

Americans...  They just can't read, can they?
 
2013-05-22 10:36:34 AM  

someonelse: Phinn: I ask because we were treated to those photos of Obama in the Situation Room being very presidential-looking when bin Ladin was being killed. Are there any photos of him dealing with the embassy murders in a similar manner?

Why would he have dealt with to wildly different situations in a similar manner? The former was a carefully planned, high-risk mission that he approved. The latter was a surprise attack on a US consulate.


So, you don't know, either, then?
 
2013-05-22 10:36:53 AM  
Why link to a TPM version of a WP story when the WP story is readily available?
 
2013-05-22 10:37:04 AM  

thurstonxhowell: factoryconnection: FlashHarry: point of fact: the WaPo is a rightwing paper.

Wait... what?  Where does that put the WaTimes and the Examiner?

The Post is right-leaning, the Examiner is right-wing, and the Times should not be called a newspaper.


And that's why the Post endorsed Obama.
 
2013-05-22 10:37:10 AM  
The same Glenn Kessler who wrote this twaddle?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/a-guide-seriou s- plans-vs-talking-point-plans/2013/03/09/dab9733c-88e5-11e2-9d71-f0feaf dd1394_blog.html

Oh yeah, he sounds totally objective. (eyeroll so extreme it nearly causes eye muscle injury)
 
2013-05-22 10:37:13 AM  
I'm 11 miles from the Capitol (as in, the building) and you can trust me.
 
2013-05-22 10:37:17 AM  
why would any body trust politicians these days? At all?
 
2013-05-22 10:37:20 AM  
This is a prime example of why being a waffling, spineless twit is never a good policy. His refusal to just call the republicans out for their hypocrisy and their insistence on standing on dead bodies to try and get a boost in the next election has allowed them to just run rampant and control the narrative and, as usual, they've completely poisoned the whole story with lies.

Diplomats die in dangerous regions. This is not a special occurrence under Obama anymore than it was under W. Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter or most, if not all, other past presidents. Should have just said that in the first place and scolded them publicly for trying to clamor over the bodies for political gain.

But nooooooo. Mr. High Road has to continue to pretend that the republicans have been acting or will continue to act like anything other than ridiculous children.

Enjoy your own Whitewater witch hunt, Obama. This isn't ever going to end now.
 
2013-05-22 10:37:22 AM  
"Republicans would have been foolish to seriously doctor e-mails that the White House at any moment could have released (and eventually did)," wrote Kessler

Yep. That's Lying Republican Scum for ya.
 
2013-05-22 10:37:42 AM  

unlikely: Ultimately, Kessler adds, "[t]he burden of proof lies with the accuser....we see little evidence that much was at play here besides imprecise wordsmithing or editing errors by journalists."

Yeah, about what I figured. But a lot of people made a lot of hay with the editing error versions, so there's that too.
All of this is one round of stupid heaped on top of the last.


I agree that the accusations that the e-mails were incorrect in an attempt to dismiss the contents of the actual e-mails is wrong, but that argument they are making blows my mind. "The burden of proof lies with the accuser"... so the inaccurate summaries of the e-mails that created an impression that there was focus on removing references to terrorism and the need to lie for the sake of the State Department that was not apparent in the actual e-mails is proof enough that the White House lied that their changes to the talking points were entirely to the tone and not the content of the CIA's version of events, but showing the hard copies of the actual e-mails is not enough proof to suggest that the source who provided the e-mail summaries manipulated the content to mislead the press?
 
Displayed 50 of 423 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | 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