CBS reports:
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 that in the actual email, 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."
So the Republicans inserted fake language? Or is the "actual email" not the actual email?
Republicans also provided what they said was a quote from an email written by State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland.... "The penultimate point is a paragraph talking about all the previous warnings provided by the Agency (CIA) about al-Qaeda's presence and activities of al-Qaeda."
The actual email from Nuland says: "The penultimate point could be abused by members to beat the State Department for not paying attention to Agency warnings."
So the version of the email we're now seeing
refers to "The penultimate point" but is missing a sentence saying what "The penultimate point
is..."? I'm skeptical!
Posts
148 comments:
The Republican version quotes Nuland discussing, "The penultimate point is a paragraph talking about all the previous warnings provided by the Agency (CIA) about al-Qaeda's presence and activities of al-Qaeda."
The actual email from Nuland says: "The penultimate point could be abused by members to beat the State Department for not paying attention to Agency warnings."
--> The weird thing? The actual email is a lot more damning than what Republicans released. It shows that it was political calculus that was in play, while also admitting to the fact warnings were ignored. If Republicans changed that quote, they changed it to be beneficial to the administration.
Lies and the lying liars...
The hope is that if enough crap gets thrown around people will just give up.
I recall the email quotes that were first reported were derived only from notes taken by someone who was allowed to read the emails but was not given copies.
Althouse,
The errors, as I understand it are the direct result of the WH controlled process.
After the House insisted on seeing the email chain involving the talking points, the WH only agreed to a small number of House staffers having access to the hard copy emails for a limited time on WH turf. No copies were allowed, so the House team made extracts and notes from the email chains.
Some notes apparently were not precise...
The government cannot be trusted to investigate itself, nor can it be expected to provide complete or accurate information when it is accused of wrong-doing.
What was the last point as opposed to the 'penultimate' point?
Misuse of penultimate?
So the Republicans inserted fake language?
Yes, because on this fake scandal Republicans were trying to pin blame on Hillary.
The errors, as I understand it are the direct result of the WH controlled process.
Purposefuly obfuscation. Now they can hammer everyone for not having the quotes perfect and dismiss everything they say. Winning!
Issue the subpoenas, then.
Drill SGT, thank you. That answers directly every single comment over there.
The WH won't release the fucking emails.
Since they won't release them, we have to rely on the notes taken by a few staffers who were given very temporary and partial access to them. The quotes the staffers wrote are "doctored" since --- wow, the emails do not say the same thing verbatim.
Even Nixon wasn't this shameless.
Wait: The White House wouldn't let Congress actually make copies of documents for its investigations? That's... awkward.
And, as was said, the "doctored" quotes from the Republicans are less damning than the real ones.
So play up the "doctored" meme because the reality is way less palatable.
Yes, because on this fake scandal Republicans were trying to pin blame on Hillary.
Dude--people died. Politicians lied about it. Fake scandal?
Wait: The White House wouldn't let Congress actually make copies of documents for its investigations? That's... awkward.
Congress needs the balls to 100% defund the State Dept until the emails are released.
100% defund the IRS until that issue is resolved.
100% defund DoJ until they come clean.
SHOW what hardball looks like.
The first quote seems odd to have come from notes (The one from Rhodes), since it adds specific language. Unless, the note taker was synthesizing multiple emails unaware it would be quoted as a single quote, assuming the error was made in good faith.
Yes, because on this fake scandal Republicans were trying to pin blame on Hillary.
Then why did Hillary say... I take responsibility.
When Hillary said 'the buck stops with me', was she lying then too?
Garage- Still not reading and comprehending any of this.
Hillary's hackery and lying is on display. You, Garage, can
watch.
Garage - why did Hillary push "It was the youtube video" to such an absurd degree? Her pushing was so absurd, it was even more outlandish that anyone else in the administration.
Before you start rabbling on about Walker, answer my question.
Why did Hillary push the "it was the Youtube video"?
Dude--people died. Politicians lied about it. Fake scandal?
They've tried blaming the sequester. They've tried blaming the ambassador. Now, they have to play up that the Republican quotes aren't verbatim since, you know, the WH won't release the emails.
At this point, I hope somebody throws a shoe or fifty at Obama.
Yes, because on this fake scandal Republicans were trying to pin blame on Hillary.
Most of the Republicans I know are trying to pin the blame on Barack, the White House appears to be trying to pin the blame on Hillary.
Aren't the most critical 48 hours of emails completely missing from this data dump? Is it a "cold, dead fingers" situation?
Probably need to fire up some hearings to see what Republican was altering official documents.
Who is going to go to jail over this?
Garage: If someone changed the emails, that may not be a crime, but it is wrong. If, however, the emails had to be manually reproduced in a limited time frame without the common courtesy of allowing copies to be made, then what you're seeing from the Republicans is an equivalent of a rush transcript; where some errors may be made. Seeing as some of the errors are better for the administration and some are worse, it is hard to see a concerted effort here, though there may have been.
We can add "improper note-taking" to the list of Republican sins though, if that will vindicate you.
garage mahal said...
So the Republicans inserted fake language?
Yes, because on this fake scandal Republicans were trying to pin blame on Hillary.
====================
Garage will no doubt support subpoenas to Susan Rice, Hillary, Nuland, Ben Rhodes, Patrick Kennedy, Petraeus, Moller to determine the truth .. who:
1. In what Nuland referred to as "my Leadership" wanted this or that point deleted because it would "cause members of Congress to attack State".
2. Who inserted the 1st talking point that it was all about a video initiating events, and why that assertion, in light of 5 days of developed evidence pointing to an ansar-al sharia attack, survived the iterative editing process until it was handed to Susan Rice. Handed to her as the "core truth:.
3. Who exactly wanted the US public, the voters left misinformed to "protect an ongoing criminal investigation" when the FBI said it was OK with the CIA pointing to terrorism, not the video.
4. What Nuland meant about a penultimate point about ...nothing? In her 'official text'?
5. Rice is asked who instructed her to be the official spokesperson. Not Nuland, the normal PR shill, or Hillary who is trotted out on bigger national matters, in in times when she is unavailable and travelling - Patrick Kennedy.
I don't quite understand Congress putting up with this.
Is it not similar to a defense attorney allowing the prosecution to briefly see documents, but not make copies or take notes?
Hagar: Yeah, but in that case, lawyers can tattle to the judge who can force them to play fair. Who can Issa go to?
Expulsion charges?
This is like 100 Watergates and 50 Iran-Contras. And one Pearl Harbor.
email is infinitely alterable, provided you're enough of a computer geek to know what else has to be made compatible with any stealth alterations.
Amazing Garage- The entire Scandal goes away because the Republicans "may" have engaged in bad note taking.
Amazing!
All of the administration's obvious orchestrated lies and cover-ups before an election don't matter--- because - squirrel!
Wow -that was easy.
So, I take it you're not willing to have a serious discussion on the merits? I honestly don't see how note-taking errors could create the first error (barring the Republican having other emails for the added context that are lost while viewing that single email), while I also find it hard that Republicans would not trumpet the obvious political math going on in the second email (that's what jumped out at me: While trying to find out how people were murdered, the administration was worried more about how it might hurt them politically.) It just seems so inconsistent.
We are still waiting for the blind faithful to enlighten as to why Hillary! insisted Benghazi murders were due to outrage from a YouTube video...
Still.
Waiting.
We are in the midst of the worst Washington scandal since Watergate. The reputation of the Obama White House has, among conservatives, gone from sketchy to sinister, and, among liberals, from unsatisfying to dangerous. No one likes what they're seeing. The Justice Department assault on the Associated Press and the ugly politicization of the Internal Revenue Service have left the administration's credibility deeply, probably irretrievably damaged. They don't look jerky now, they look dirty. The patina of high-mindedness the president enjoyed is gone."
This is no ordinary scandal
garage mahal said...
Probably need to fire up some hearings to see what Republican was altering official documents.
Of course no such thing happened, but you will keep flinging the poo.
The White House refuses to provide copies of the emails to anyone and garage blames......wait for it....Republicans.
Shocking.
Totally stunning development.
Issagate™
I'm still waiting for the White House to explain how "I can't answer the question because its under investigation" instantaneously becomes "that was a long time ago"
As I understand it, the Administration did not allow note-taking on-site, so the e-mail quotes were made from memory.
"Citations" a better term than "quotes"?
The email system should have been constructed such that emails that have been sent are no editable. Then satisfaction of a request should be by a link to the email account not a piece of paper. Isn't this the most transparent administration ever?
The email system should have been constructed such that emails that have been sent are no editable. Then satisfaction of a request should be by a link to the email account not a piece of paper. Isn't this the most transparent administration ever?
Why am I not surprised that Republicans are fabricating "evidence"? How pathetically desperate Republicans have become.
What the Republicans altering text to suit their political agenda, why that almost as bad as demanding that all government science studies be reviewed by them--the party of fake rolls on.
The penultimate point is "Why the video?"
"What the Republicans altering text to suit their political agenda, why that almost as bad as demanding that all government science studies be reviewed by them--the party of fake rolls on."
-- At the moment, we don't know that they were altered or if bad notes were taken or if the White House altered the emails after the Republican release (But, then, you hit the same problem: Why change the second email to be worse for themselves?) I really think the best answer is there was sloppy note-taking of some sort.
"Sloppy note-taking"?
Yeah, right!
Republicans playing politics as usual is more like it!
Ok, so, let's focus on the -correct- emails from the White House. Why was the White House massaging facts to protect the administration from Congressional oversight because, as admitted in the email, they ignored warnings and let people die?
Let's ignore the Republicans' versions of the emails entirely and focus on the one the White House released. Would that make the left happy?
Ha ha ha. It's Obama's fault.
What the Republicans altering text to suit their political agenda...
Your ability to parse text appears to be superior to mine, so would you please explain to me how the "alterations" better suit the Repubs' political agenda than the alleged originals?
Nothing will be done about this, the crooked Dems and the crooked liberal media will make sure of that. Plus, the headline on yahoo this morning was how the Benghazi scandal was a big fizzle and that Hillery was as popular as ever.
Matthew.. The left will not answer questions honestly.
Using deaths to manufacture false evidence to deceive the American people?
Is this sedition yet?
AprilApple-how can the left "answer questions honestly" when the questions are being fabricated whole cloth by Republicans?
... Garage has gone bye-bye. What has anyone else on the left got left?
Jay Retread: Here's a chance to earn some goodwill: Answer my question focused solely on the email the White House released.
Garage-
It might not rise to sedition, but it definitely deserves to be condemned as being morally dispicable!
The emails are enough for me to see that Victoria Nuland is intentionally trying to hide the whole truth from Congress, which requested the Talking Points being drafted. Those who claim these were CIA talking points seem to downplay Petreaus saying the final draft should not be used because it is not what was requested. The information about previous warnings were removed at the request of Nuland specifically because she recognized they would be damning to the State Department.
That's enough for me to think Nuland should be fired and face sanction from Congress. Bonus for Democrats, Nuland has sufficient ties to the Republican side to say that she isn't so much a partisan hack as just a pure bureaucratic hack. If Nuland thinks her firing would be unjust, then she could tell her side of the story to Congress.
Sablan- the administration was trying to respond in real time during a crises.
Republicans on the other hand were fabricating evidence in a deliberative manner.
If the actual emails (all 100 pages out of 2500) weren't in truth released, but only allowed to be copied, then let's all say it together:
STONEWALL!
Is obstruction of a Congressional investigation impeachable?
I'll bet it is.
garage mahal said...
So the Republicans inserted fake language?
Yes, because on this fake scandal Republicans were trying to pin blame on Hillary.
Yes, because Stevens and the others aren't really dead, right?
Beside, what difference does it make?
It sort of sucks to be Obama, Hillary, and members of the liberal and progressive jewish media manipulation and Obama kneepad brigade that all but buried Benghazi when the IRS scandal came out and undermined keeping the Benghazi biz from being a successful coverup.
Benghazi got new life.
Retread: Incorrect; these emails are from days after the event after the CIA/FBI informed them it was a terrorist attack. In addition, it deals with facts they already knew (we failed to listen to warnings issued for months); they were not prognosticating on an on-going investigation. The email says to leave out facts that were already known.
So, want to try again?
Bob Woodward, this morning:
I would not dismiss Benghazi. It's a very serious issue. As people keep saying, four people were killed. You look at the hydraulic pressure that was in the system to not tell the truth, and, you know, we use this term and the government uses this term, talking points. Talking points, as we know, are like legal briefs. They're an argument on one side. What we need to do is get rid of talking points and they need to put out statements or papers that are truth documents.
BTW, I corrected a couple of transcription errors made by those neocons at the Weekly Standard.
Retread - So Benghazi and never happened?
The lies pushed by the administration never happened?
The fake "Republicans doctored it all" isn't panning out. It doesn't make sense and it too is a distraction.
What are your thoughts on the youtube video?
It might not rise to sedition, but it definitely deserves to be condemned as being morally dispicable!
Indeed! We need a thorough investigation stat. At the absolute bare minimum Jon Karl needs to out his source.
Jay Retread said...
Sablan- the administration was trying to respond in real time during a crises.
This is exactly right.
The crisis they were responding to in real time--over the several days after the deaths in Benghazi--was the political crisis.
Ok, I need to ask, because I need to know. Jay/Garage: Do you honestly believe there's nothing there to what happened? That it was an honest mistake that anyone could have made, so what's the big deal? Or, do you honestly feel that because there might be some political motivation poisoning the well, it is better not to get to the bottom of it if the motives might be mildly impure?
I don't get the rational reason to -not- vigorously investigate this. From the snark, I can't tell if you get why this is bad, but don't want to face the music and be on the losing end politically, or if you just don't get the scope of what happened, or just think it doesn't really matter.
Clearly, the committed blind faith leftists here don't care about crimes committed by their own party.
Bad faith.
And I still want to know what was going on in Benghazi and elsewhere in Libya before the attack!
What the Republicans altering text to suit their political agenda
The talking points are out. Truly pathetic.
Jay Retread said...
Why am I not surprised that Republicans are fabricating "evidence"?
Of course no such thing happened.
Isn't it funny you don't even care that the Obama Administration won't release these emails?
Jay Retread said...
Sablan- the administration was trying to respond in real time during a crises
Really?
Because Susan Rice didn't start peddling her lies until 4 days later.
Is that "real time" now?
Notice how this story does exactly what the WH wants it to do, which is, make the low information voters pretend this is all about Republicans.
roesch/voltaire said...
What the Republicans altering text to suit their political agenda,
Please explain how anything any Republican did alters the fact that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Jay Carney, and Susan Rice all lied about this matter?
Isn't it funny you don't even care that the Obama Administration won't release these emails?
Fun note: Sarah Palin's emails, in which no one died, thus far have received more scrutiny and press interest.
I bet if they wanted to the Democrats with the help of the press could convince a majority of the voters that Guam really can tip over, already has... and that insufficient federal spending is why.
First, it should be noted that the Obama Administration, unlike the Bush and Reagan administrations, has not been using a blanket Executive Privilege justification to keep information from congress.
What happened in Bengazi was horrible and it is shameful that Republicans think it is their best political football to try to kick around.
Here, here is an email, reporter.
"Okay, thanks, congressman."
Journalism!
If you remember the old movie, "A Guide For The Married Man", the Lefties are trying to do to everybody else what Joey Bishop did to Ann Morgan Guilbert after she caught him in bed with another woman.
OK, RV, apparently you're not yet prepared to explain your textual analysis. I'm disappointed that you--a teacher--are content to leave me unenlightened on such an important question.
How about this question, for any of our distinguished Dem commenters to answer:
Why was the State Dept's PR person involved in any exchange of emails purportedly devoted to figuring out exactly what happened in Benghazi? What's her expertise--aside from spin?
I'm sure you've all given this a lot of thought, so it shouldn't take you long to type out your replies.
"First, it should be noted that the Obama Administration, unlike the Bush and Reagan administrations, has not been using a blanket Executive Privilege justification to keep information from congress."
-- That's because just lying works better for them.
garage mahal said...
Is this sedition yet?
Your lies? No, they are not sedition yet. To be sedition, there would have to be at least a small chance that someone would believe them.
But keep trying. It is, after all, all you've got.
Why was the State Dept's PR person
One step further: Why does the State Department have public relations people?
Jay Retread said...
First, it should be noted that the Obama Administration, unlike the Bush and Reagan administrations, has not been using a blanket Executive Privilege justification to keep information from congress.
No, they're just saying, "What difference does it make?", and try to change the subject.
Boy, what candor, what transparency, what honesty!
What happened in Bengazi was horrible and it is shameful that Republicans think it is their best political football to try to kick around.
Unlike the financial crash of '08 which was mostly the democrats' doing and, in which, Choom had a very big hand?
Or are we talking A-stan and Iraq?
Also, why does it matter what Bush and Reagan did? We're talking about Obama; it didn't work to say "but my brother/sister did X" when my parents were mad about Y. It also doesn't work at the political level; I couldn't tell an officer "I only beat the woman! Other people have killed them! Why are you hassling me?"
This was a dumb move by the Republicans, for sure.
It obfuscates what already had momentum and was causing distress for the Administration.
An overreach, if you will.
Now, it looks like no one can get their story straight.
I could give a shit about the emails, because I already know what Susan Rice said five days out, and how that conflicts with the Hicks testimony provided by much more immediately involved people.
"Fun note: Sarah Palin's emails, in which no one died, thus far have received more scrutiny and press interest."
And despite a near psychotic need to find something in all her emails, they found nothing but an honest dedicated Governor in there.
Now who thinks seeing all the emails of any one of these Administration officials would hold up to such scrutiny? But Palin was "totally unqualified". I know what they meant now. You have to be able to beat a polygraph to hold office.
We want to know if Benghazi was preventable.
As for me, I'm not looking for a conspiracy.
Obama probably believes his Cairo speech, and wanted to stay on track in Libya and the Muslim world during the protests.
The realpolitik of the former human rights folks cum diplomats is probably not as naive, and yes, arrogant, as even Obama appears to be.
It's like trying to get the Olympics to Chicago, except they broke the most serious code of all in not at least trying to get our guys out.
How's Libya doing, what about Mali, what about the rise of Islamism.
We've got an idealistic, inexperienced, above his pay grade Man of the Left at the helm and the consequences will have to be dealt with for a long time.
"Now, it looks like no one can get their story straight."
Get the emails. It's that simple. Not like your older bother does when you ask to see something and he whizzes it past you face, but like grown ups. Provide copies.
Welp, looks like it's off to UmbrellaGate now that #BENGHAZI had the biscuit. UmbrellaGate is sorta like Watergate ain't it?
I'll go check Breitbart to see if they're talking about it.
The State Dept., the CIA, and the Justice Dept. all play politics, but they are agency politics, not party.
They are well above such vulgar concerns.
Benghazi? I'm still wondering why we decided to bomb Libya in the first place. Irregardless. Should we wonder why people from that country want to kill people from ours? What a stupid idea it was to have people in that country after we bombed them without adequate protection.
As for me, I'm not looking for a conspiracy.
Me neither. I just hate being lied to* in that way.
* - I know all politicians lie about a lot of things. This one, however, really pisses me off.
Jay Retread said...
First, it should be noted that the Obama Administration, unlike the Bush and Reagan administrations, has not been using a blanket Executive Privilege justification to keep information from congress.
complete and utter lie.
PS: Bush and Reagan used Executive privilege 9 times, according to HuffPo. Bill Clinton used it 14 times. Why didn't Retread mention that?
Huff Po link for reference.
I know you guys think this scandal stuff is important, but it's really preventing Obama from getting the middle class back top work. There are caddies and greenskeepers standing idle waiting for you guys to just let it go.
The most pathetic leftist bullshit that only leftists buy. Give people a few minutes to view email and have them take notes. Complain of falsification when minor errors occur.
garagemahal beclowns himself for all time--never to be taken seriously again.
The trolls care more about protecting little black jesus and cankles than the truth, than the deaths of 4 americans including an ambassador, and having a government lie directly to the American peoples face.
You are disgusting piece of shit. Transcription errors are more important to you than honest and competent government.
It won't save your lefty icons from investigation, and it sure as shit won't save the democrat party from the 2014 wave.
Enjoy your lame duck affirmative action boyfriend, twats.
Seems to me the actual emails, submitted to appropriate oversight authorities, would have alleviated this issue. But that's just me.
Nobody seems to be willing or able to explain how these "doctored" emails help the Repubs, so I guess I'm free to offer my own hypothesis about them.
Let's start w/ the authentic email from Nuland, the PR person at State:
"The penultimate point could be abused by members to beat the State Department for not paying attention to Agency warnings."
As Althouse has pointed out, this leaves unspecified what Nuland meant by "the penultimate point". So it's not unlikely that at least one recipient of it replied to her w/ a request for clarification. A reply to such a request might well have been something like this:
"The penultimate point is a paragraph talking about all the previous warnings provided by the Agency (CIA) about al-Qaeda's presence and activities of al-Qaeda."
AFAIK, it has not been established that the email quoted by the Repubs is the same one being referred to as the "original" one.
Apologies in advance if I'm wrong about that last point.
AS Hagar noted the really interesting question is what was going on in Libya PRIOR to the consulate attack. We may be dealing with symptoms and not causes.
Nobody seems to be willing or able to explain how these "doctored" emails help the Repubs
Of course not, there is no interest in any actual thinking on this.
The low information voters were told Republicans moved a few words around and that is that.
Were I a bit more cynical, I might suspect that not releasing actual copies, but relying on memory and transcriptions, is a good ploy to continue the obfuscation. And from what I have seen about this administration is that obfuscation is what they do best--well, except for incompetence and downright illegality.
Nobody seems to be willing or able to explain how these "doctored" emails help the Repubs, so I guess I'm free to offer my own hypothesis about them.
They wanted to make the state dept (Hillary)look bad. Repubs didn't think the WH would release the email chain. Ooops.
Garage: OK. Now the White House -has- and they look -worse- than what the Republicans released. It's an epic political "own goal."
One thing that smells is the initial talking point - bullet 1 - that it was in part spurred by the video and may have involved extremist elements - inserted 9/12/2012.
It was not changed before Rice was ordered out to give the completed BS to the public.
Not changed despite info from State, the CIA, and Libyan Prime Minister in the 5 days in between that it was a planned attack by Ansar al-Sharia.
The facts got in the way of Hillary and Obama's talking point.
They wanted to make the state dept (Hillary)look bad.
But the actual phrase, "all of the relevant equities," doesn't prevent that at all, since State is pretty obviously one of the most relevant agencies.
I can see how that might have been intended as emphasizing this point to the members of the committee preparing to question Clinton. But I don't see how it makes things any worse for her.
I've been thinking about this odd phrase "all of the relevant equities". Why use the clunky term "equities" instead of the much more natural "agencies"?
The only reason I can think of--aside from the obvious one that people in DC can't write well--is that "equities" would include the White House, whereas "agencies" would not.
Roger J. said...
Seems to me the actual emails, submitted to appropriate oversight authorities, would have alleviated this issue. But that's just me.
Isn't it time for someone to say the magic word, "Subpoena"?
Edutcher: Agree that subpoena is the magic word--and again my cynicism shows up here: By this arcane process of showing them and giving transcriptors limited time, absolves the administration from using executive privilege. And, of course, the administration still has EP in their quiver. And when it gets dicey, I suspect it will be used.
If Woodward ever gets a book out of this, I predict that the title will be All the Relevant Equities.
That way he can sell a bunch of copies to low-info types looking for stock tips.
Jay Retread -
"What happened in Bengazi was horrible and it is shameful that Republicans think it is their best political football to try to kick around."
================
No, what happened in Benghazi was hardly Horrible!!!
It was an enemy attack. Lots of people die in enemy attacks. Horrible only in the sense that war and /or jihad is horrible.
But not, as the Left loves to faux-emote, a "senseless tragedy".
They got our Ambassador and we potted up to 50 Islamoids and could have whacked another hundred or so if we had gotten backup in.
The problem for liberals and progressive jews orchestrating the media coverup to support their beloved Hillary and Black Messiah - is they forgot the lesson of Watergate - that the coverup is worse than the original incident.
garage mahal said...
They wanted to make the state dept (Hillary)look bad. Repubs didn't think the WH would release the email chain
Please list anything, one single thing, about this story which demonstrates that Hillay no longer looks bad.
Thanks in advance
ChipS wins the thread! great post using minimal verbiage. :)
As a point of fact the WH did not "release" any emails.
They showed them to reporters.
YOu stupid liar.
"Why use the clunky term "equities" instead of the much more natural "agencies"?"
-- Equities is just normal government jargon, it can mean people, agencies, organizations, states, countries, clubs, etc.
I know this as I do a lot of work with government; it's just a bureaucratic term of art.
They make people copy the emails in long hand and them they quibble about minor ommissions when the fucking incompetent President actually releases what he should have released to begin with. That's some Leftist quickthinking right there. Perry Mason never had to do that, but still.
Matthew Sablan: you are clearly more up on modern bureaucratic phraseology. During my time on the Joint Staff we just referred to the as the assholes in State/CIA/NSA etc :)
Oh, they probably do. They just don't write it in the memos that way.
Equities is just normal government jargon, it can mean people, agencies, organizations, states, countries, clubs, etc.
Well, that's the point, isn't it? To include groups other than the relevant agencies?
Probably need to fire up some hearings to see what Republican was altering official documents.
You're beclowning yourself more egregiously than usual.
And by the way, caplight, if you're listening: this is an example of garage lying.
So suck it.
Again, I believe it is correct that the Congress critters were allowed to look at the documents, but not to make copies - either electro-static or longhand - or to take notes at the time.
Yes; but it can also just be used to mean agencies.
I would've told them to subpoena the original emails. Let the WH look bad stonewalling.
But then again, that's why I work in the private sector.
They wanted to make the state dept (Hillary)look bad
Hillary and State manage to do that just fine on their own.
I believe Nuland also referred to "my building."
In the bureaucracy it is me against my brothers and sisters, me and my brothers and sisters against our cousins, and me and my brothers and sisters and cousins against the world outside.
Yes; but it can also just be used to mean agencies.
I understand that "agencies" refers to a subset of "equities", but unless you're arguing that the term "agencies" is never used, then I don't think that establishes anything here.
You can ascribe this to bad writing--which it may well be--but there is in fact a track record w/ these people.
"We're portrayed by Republicans as either being lying or idiots," said one Obama administration official who was part of the Benghazi response. "It's actually closer to us being idiots."
Uhm... Yeah. Well, guess that settles it.
Seems Nulands actual email is far more damning than the so called 'fabricated' email. Is obvious they wanted to avoid references to terrorism so close to the election. Can't have your consulate overrun and your ambassador murdered. It looks bad in the newspapers and upsets the folks at home.
Easier to blame it all on YouTube.
And by the way, caplight, if you're listening: this is an example of garage lying.
You guys are way too easy.
garage: "You guys are way too easy."
LOL
Says the Einstein guy who claimed the actual Einstein was educated in American public schools.
LOL
You guys are way too easy.
Trying to actually show you respect enough to believe you're serious, quite honestly.
But your comment leads me to think you're actually just trolling.
I'd really hate to think PMJ and Jay are right about you thataway.
Not because I don't trust them, just because you've always been basically decent toward me.
They wanted to make the state dept (Hillary)look bad.
She already did look bad. She pushed regime change in Libya and in the aftermath, stuck a diplomatic staff in an unprotected consulate in a war ravaged country overrun with Islamists.
Don't you agree that's a pretty idiotic thing to do?
I'm surprised that anyone is shocked by the more than usual incompetence of State in this situation. Other than riding the coattails of her husband all her life, she had zero qualifications for the job. Considering the guy in the White House had even less than her, its a wonder we aren't importing toilet paper like Venezuela.
I believe a lot of our toilet paper comes from Canada.
Colonel Angus - Considering the guy in the White House had even less than her, its a wonder we aren't importing toilet paper like Venezuela.
We exist on Canadian toilet paper and some still made in the USA. And if wealthy "jobs creators" figure out a way they can close down the US factories, end jobs, and send raw US forest products to China to make toilet paper, they will.
New Chinese factories, jobs to take the place of the destroyed US industry - but increased profit to the Hero Jobs Creators and more Free Trade "win-win!".
Surprise! Republicans have an agenda to smear the State Department. They're trying too hard, maybe they should just sit back and let the facts speak for themselves as Krauthammer said.
New Chinese factories, jobs to take the place of the destroyed US industry - but increased profit to the Hero Jobs Creators and more Free Trade "win-win!".
I'm all for huge tarriffs on imports. Let's bring all those low skilled jobs back because it worked so well last time we did it.
Where I work, I see "equities" as almost a synonym for "interests", as in "make sure USAF equities are represented/protected in that meeting you are going to attend".
I'll repost this so everybody can dance to the music, but too good to keep:
New Benghazi excuse, "We're just stupid".
garage and Retread fit right in.
Inga said...
Surprise! Republicans have an agenda to smear the State Department. They're trying too hard, maybe they should just sit back and let the facts speak for themselves as Krauthammer said.
We tried that last year. You sent the IRS and DOJ.
Meantime, the She Devil of the SS now qualifies for the New Benghazi Excuse.
Here's that penultimate talking point that Nuland successfully had removed:
"The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al-Qa’ida in Benghazi and eastern Libya. These noted that, since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador’s convoy. We cannot rule out the individuals has previously surveilled the U.S. facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks.”
Page 44 here. note the highlighting.
Surprise! Republicans have an agenda to smear the State Department.
Surprise! Inga is making the exact same arguments as Nuland for withholding information from Congress. If Inga and Nuland think something may be used political, why shouldn't they get ahead of the game and be overtly political for their agenda first? It's their right to be partisan hacks too!
At the absolute bare minimum Jon Karl needs to out his source.
Can't Obama just steal his phone records?
Seems to be a pattern for the Chicago boyz.
First, it should be noted that the Obama Administration, unlike the Bush and Reagan administrations, has not been using a blanket Executive Privilege justification to keep information from congress.
He's using an AG and a DoJ who will just ignore subpoenas.
Much better.
Surprise! Republicans have an agenda to smear the State Department. They're trying too hard, maybe they should just sit back and let the facts speak for themselves as Krauthammer said.
Yup, falling for nonsense. Do the Lefties here share the same non-functional brain?
It's official --- there is NOTHING Obama can do that Inga, tubby mahal, RV, or any of the assorted Lefties will actually criticize him for.
Hell, he could rape Inga and she'd thank him for doing so.
Who gave the order to stand down?
Hell, he could rape Inga and she'd thank him for doing so.
in a way that's already happened.
So they were lying when they first lied to us? I believe that implicitly.
Post a Comment