GOP once again chews off its dick.

[F.O.A.D.]

GOP'ers apparently tried to get away with changing the texts
in the Benghazi emails...

From CBS:



SCOTT PELLEY: Also at his news conference today the president
called 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. Of course, Benghazi
has become a political controversy. Republicans claim that the
Administration watered down the facts in talking points that were given
to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice for television appearances while Mr. Obama
was running for reelection. Republicans on Capitol Hill claim that they
had found proof of this in White House e-mails that they leaked to
reporters last week. Well, it turns out some of the quotes in those
e-mails were wrong. Major Garrett is at the White House for us tonight.
Major?

MAJOR GARRETT: Scott, Republicans have claimed that the State
Department under Hillary Clinton was trying to protect itself from
criticism. The White House released the real e-mails late yesterday, and
here's what we found when we compared them to the quotes that had been
provided by Republicans. One e-mail was written by Deputy National
Security Advisor Ben Rhodes.

On Friday, Republicans leaked what they said was a quote from
Rhodes. "We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency
equities, including those of the State Department, and we don't want to
undermine the FBI investigation." But it turns out, in the actual e-mail
Rhodes did not mention the State Department. It read "We need to resolve
this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly
the investigation."

Republicans also provided what they said was a quote from an e-mail
written by State Department Spokesman Victoria Nuland. The Republican
version quotes Nuland discussing: "The penultimate point is a paragraph
talking about all the previous warnings provided by the Agency about
al-Qaeda's presence and activities of al-Qaeda." The actual e-mail from
Nuland says: the "...penultimate point could be abused by Members to
beat the State Department for not paying attention to Agency
warnings..." The C.I.A. agreed with the concerns raised by the State
Department and revised the talking points to make them less specific
than the C.I.A.'s original version, eliminating references to al-Qaeda
and affiliates and earlier security warnings. There is no evidence,
Scott, the White House orchestrated these changes.

PELLEY: Major, thank you.

[jps]

Whatever suits their purpose. Lie, cheat, steal.

They're still working day and night on voter suppression, because they
know their chances are dwindling and the writing is all over the wall.

[jps]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 15:17:33 -0400, gfre...@aol.com wrote:

>Talking about lies and cheating, I wonder how high this IRS scandal
>will go when they start throwing out indictments.
>The threat of a few years in a federal prison usually starts to jog
>memories.
>So far nobody knows anything about it but it is hard to believe that a
>low level staffer in Ohio did this all on their own with nobody
>knowing anything about it. If that is true, it is even more chilling.

It wasn't a low level staffer. Go read and then make comments, unless
you don't care about accuracy.

[iBoaterer]

In article <u80dp8hfnm0dqfvv4...@4ax.com>,
gfre...@aol.com says...

>
> On Fri, 17 May 2013 11:54:13 -0700, jps <tr...@thedump.com> wrote:
>

> Talking about lies and cheating, I wonder how high this IRS scandal
> will go when they start throwing out indictments.
> The threat of a few years in a federal prison usually starts to jog
> memories.
> So far nobody knows anything about it but it is hard to believe that a
> low level staffer in Ohio did this all on their own with nobody
> knowing anything about it. If that is true, it is even more chilling.

You are correct, this is a LOT higher than some low level employee. How
far remains to be seen!

[iBoaterer]

In article <2m7fp89f36m07lmvf...@4ax.com>,
gfre...@aol.com says...

> Geithner seems to be where the "over/under" focus is now.
> What did he know and when did he know it?

And IF he knew, what did he do with the information??!

[jps]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 01:47:43 -0400, gfre...@aol.com wrote:

>Compared to where Fox wants this to end up, it was a low level
>staffer.
>The real question is whether this came out of the Cincinnati office or
>whether it was directed from DC. If there is a DC connection it starts
>getting closer to the White House.
>
>The other question is why they sat on this for a year without telling
>anyone at the White House and if that claim may become "inoperative"
>under scrutiny.
>
>Firing a guy who was going to leave anyway is not really doing much
>but I bet he does know more than he has said so far (assuming nothing
>happened Friday that I missed)
>
>I was out in the BOAT. ;-)

Turns out there were people within the White House who knew this had
happened. Fortunately, Fox News didn't find out or Sandy would have
been interrupted by this hair-on-fire scandal that Obama ordered
directly.

If you read about what happened with 501(c)(4) applications after
Citizen's United became legal (IRS was flooded), it's perfectly
understandable that the paper pushers responsible for granting the
apps used more "efficient" means to separate the fraudulent from the
real.

501(c)(4) are for organizations who are "exclusively" focused on
social welfare. Any organization with Tea Party in the name can
pretty reliably be judged as bullshit, since it's not even reasonable
to assume they're primarily concerned with conducting social welfare.

Stupid methods they used but completely understandable.

[John H]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 11:54:13 -0700, jps <tr...@thedump.com> wrote:

Good gosh...You're talking to Harry about telling lies. Talk about two peas in a pod!

John H.
--

Hope you're having a great day!