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 34
    More: Interesting, District of Columbia, Benghazi, fact checking, Capitol Hill Republicans, Benghazi emails, emails, Washington Post, ABC White House  
•       •       •

10905 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-05-22 10:27:54 AM
6 votes:
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 10:33:24 AM
5 votes:
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 10:28:55 AM
4 votes:
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 09:43:57 AM
4 votes:
"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 10:37:20 AM
3 votes:
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 10:36:04 AM
3 votes:

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 10:31:29 AM
3 votes:

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 11:05:32 AM
2 votes:
A reminder to all the farkers out there:

fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net
2013-05-22 11:01:35 AM
2 votes:
Fark:

Everything Obama does, everything his administration does, is awesome, or Bush did it.

About sums it up.
2013-05-22 10:34:51 AM
2 votes:
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 10:30:47 AM
2 votes:

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 10:28:28 AM
2 votes:

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 10:18:25 AM
2 votes:

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 09:12:38 PM
1 votes:

jpo2269: Halli,

"Karl over the weekend tweeted, "I sincerely regret the error I made describing an email from Ben Rhodes. I should have stated, as I did elsewhere, the reporting was based on a summary provided by a source. I apologize for my mistake." He declined to comment further."

It appears you are wrong in your assertion.


So the guy who made erronous report makes a lame excuse and we should just buy it? Especially when it completely contradicts his previous reporting?
2013-05-22 01:54:47 PM
1 votes:
It is sad when you have to fact check the fact checker.
2013-05-22 12:29:54 PM
1 votes:
If someone (ESPECIALLY someone with clear motives to lie) gives you notes about emails, don't tell everyone you received the emails. That should be Journalism 101.

As always, Colbert discussed this,brilliantly the other night.
2013-05-22 12:20:19 PM
1 votes:

Phinn: vygramul: Ah, so now you're backing off your interpretation of the fifth. That's good that you can admit you're of the "guilty until proven innocent" crowd.

Have you had a head injury recently?


If I do, it's from reading your gyrations as you try to comport your bullshiat opinions with reality.
2013-05-22 12:00:36 PM
1 votes:

Phinn: TheBigJerk: How the fark do you  "poorly transcribe" an email?

By only being given a chance to read and hand-copy it, rather than being handed a hard copy.


So he resorted to a bizarre form of short hand that involved adding in non-existent words?  Seems likely.
2013-05-22 11:44:01 AM
1 votes:
Glenn Kessler is a moron. That is all.
2013-05-22 11:39:21 AM
1 votes:

vygramul: 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.



The newspaper's editorial positions on foreign policy and economic issues have seen a definitively conservative bent: it steadfastly supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq, warmed to President George W. Bush's proposal to partially privatize Social Security, opposed a deadline for U.S. withdrawal from the Iraq War, and advocated free trade agreements, including CAFTA.
2013-05-22 10:43:53 AM
1 votes:

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


the WaPo "fact checkers" are a joke. they failed in fact checking repeatedly during the election and are continuing that fine streak here. i don't know if it's because they have an agenda they are pursuing or they just don't want to actually call someone a liar but they contort and do the "what if" to the point that they are useless.

in this specific case we have this: Karl started the article by citing "White House e-mails reviewed by ABC News."    which is from an article/blog post which is 100% sympathetic to Karl and the WaPo.  and yet they readily admit that Karl farked up by saying he/ABC had actually seen the emails in question.
2013-05-22 10:43:13 AM
1 votes:

Astorix: mrshowrules: 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

After these true outlandish crimes and the fact that the Republicans tried so hard to steal Clinton's presidency over a bj I just can't muster up any excitement over this. The drone strikes concern me much more, but everybody is focused on this--comparatively speaking--trivial issue.


Obama's three greatest scandals IMHO:

1) not closing GITMO
2) extending the Patriot Act
3) not prosecuting HSBC for Iran money laundering
2013-05-22 10:40:36 AM
1 votes:
Does the text of the e-mails the Whitehouse release match the text the Republicans released?

Why didn't the "fact-checker answer that question?
2013-05-22 10:40:29 AM
1 votes:

vygramul: 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.


It's not the Post's fault that the GOP didn't bother to find someone decent to run.
2013-05-22 10:35:59 AM
1 votes:

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 10:35:43 AM
1 votes:
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 10:34:38 AM
1 votes:

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 10:32:36 AM
1 votes:
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 10:32:35 AM
1 votes:

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 10:30:39 AM
1 votes:
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 10:28:58 AM
1 votes:
images.sodahead.com
2013-05-22 10:26:26 AM
1 votes:

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 10:25:02 AM
1 votes:
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 09:57:47 AM
1 votes:

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.
 
Displayed 34 of 34 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report