Benghazi: People Died Obama Lied

archer wrote:

FredHayek wrote: You mean the Tea Partiers in 2010 who gave Obama a shellacking? But keep underestimating the enemy. Axelrod doesn't. Why Obama kept campaigning till the last minute.

No, we mean the tea partiers in 2012 when many voters in America recognized that the Tea Party candidates performed worse than those they had replaced. They have some serious tarnish on their brand

Right... I mean like the 17 teabaggers that got thrown out of office in 2012... (And the 4 or 5 that were so extreme that they guaranteed that the Dem in that race would win...) I just love bat-****-crazy... I could sit and watch it for hours.

archer wrote:

FredHayek wrote: You mean the Tea Partiers in 2010 who gave Obama a shellacking? But keep underestimating the enemy. Axelrod doesn't. Why Obama kept campaigning till the last minute.

No, we mean the tea partiers in 2012 when many voters in America recognized that the Tea Party candidates performed worse than those they had replaced. They have some serious tarnish on their brand

No thanks to the IRS for giving liberal/progressive groups an unfair advantage. The liberal "brand " gets the red carpet treatment while conservatives got the shaft (and no, I'm not saying that was the only reason for the loss, but we'lll never know how much it mattered)

Rick wrote:

archer wrote:

FredHayek wrote: You mean the Tea Partiers in 2010 who gave Obama a shellacking? But keep underestimating the enemy. Axelrod doesn't. Why Obama kept campaigning till the last minute.

No, we mean the tea partiers in 2012 when many voters in America recognized that the Tea Party candidates performed worse than those they had replaced. They have some serious tarnish on their brand

No thanks to the IRS for giving liberal/progressive groups an unfair advantage. The liberal "brand " gets the red carpet treatment while conservatives got the shaft (and no, I'm not saying that was the only reason for the loss, but we'lll never know how much it mattered)

How would their tax status effect how the public voted? It doesn't effect donations. People who donate to a 501(c)(4) do not get a tax deduction. I would want to see how many groups who have the tax exempt status are conservative and how many are liberals. Perhaps the sheer number of conservative groups applying sent up a red flag. But hey, if you can hang the losses in 2012 on the IRS, have at it. That absolves the GOP of any blame and they can continue to make the same mistakes.

The King had no coattails. Obama won Coffman's district but the Dem couldn't.

And actually IRS intimidation can affect 501(c)(4)'s if you are jumping through hoops for the bullyboys of the IRS, it limits your ability to run a campaign, especially if people forming the groups are themsleves being audited. Or do you think IRS audits aren't an intimidating tactic? Might even convince patriots to not form a 501(c)(4).

And the teabaggers had no pull...Right... The Dem candidate won the Senate race in Arkansas that should have gone to the Republican...except he had "legitimate rape" on his mind.

Spare me your carefully selected one-off example of a Republican winning in a right-leaning district....

I just hope the teabaggers come out in force and primary every single GOP candidate that isn't "far enough" right... Do us a favor...PLEASE.

At least LJ found a way to use teabagger in a sentence or two... she must go into withdrawls when she can't.

Washington Post gives three Pinnochios to the claims the GOP doctored the e-mails. LOOKS LIKE CBS is still lying for Barack. [ quote="LadyJazzer"]

Republicans Altered Benghazi Emails, CBS News Report Claims

One day after The White House released 100 pages of Benghazi emails, a report has surfaced alleging that Republicans released a set with altered text.

CBS News reported Thursday that leaked versions sent out by the GOP last Friday had visible differences than Wednesday's official batch. Two correspondences that were singled out in the report came from National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes and State Department Spokeswoman Victoria Nuland.

The GOP version of Rhodes' comment, according to CBS News: "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."

The White House email: "We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation."

The GOP version of Nuland's comment, according to CBS News: 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."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-5 ... -reported/

..And after altering them, then they string them together to manufacture additional "outrage"...Imagine my surprise....[/quote]

Fred, I think the more important link would be that of the Washigton Post since that's who you were referencing in order to counter the CBS report.

The administration thinks they have the suspects in Benghazi. Are they not drone worthy?

LadyJazzer wrote: ..And after altering them, then they string them together to manufacture additional "outrage"...Imagine my surprise....

I'm trying to imagine your surprise... since the GOP DID NOT alter any emails...

The White House claim of ‘doctored e-mails... to smear the president’

In other words, the summary would have been fairly close if the commas had been removed and replaced with brackets: “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.”

So is this more a case of some sloppy note-taking and reportorial imprecision? (There were also some discrepancies concerning an e-mail from State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland.) Hayes, on May 14, noted: “Neither of my pieces quoted the Rhodes e-mail. This was no accident. Near-verbatim is not verbatim.”

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.

The burden of proof lies with the accuser. Despite Pfeiffer’s claim of political skullduggery, we see little evidence that much was at play here besides imprecise wordsmithing or editing errors by journalists.

Three Pinocchios [/b]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac ... _blog.html

Read the article in full... the timeline and details are a bit lengthy but bottom line... the GOP did not alter any emails... it was bad reporting (any wonder). But thanks for playing.