General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWOW, This is Pretty EPIC
Generally, once partisan, tendentious sources leak information that turns out to be wrong, nothings ever done about it. Thats for many reasons, some good or somewhat understandable, mostly bad. But on CBS Evening News tonight, Major Garrett did something I dont feel like Ive seen in a really long time or maybe ever on a network news cast. He basically said straight out: Republicans told us these were the quotes, that wasnt true. Quick transcript after the jump
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 heres 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 dont 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 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 notes Nuland discussing: The penultimate point is a paragraph talking about all the previous warnings provided by the Agency (CIA) about al-Qaedas 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.
[ed.note: This is a rush transcription so some spelling and capitalization is off.]
http://editors.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2013/05/wow_this_is_pretty_epic.php?ref=fpblg
liberal N proud
(61,194 posts)They have been looking for anything they can for 5 years to do a tar & feather job.
Initech
(108,785 posts)Cha
(319,134 posts)Segami
(14,923 posts)

He's never looked better!
bluedigger
(17,437 posts)Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)Cha
(319,134 posts)http://www.politifact.com/personalities/john-boehner/
It's Politifact but we know they got these lies right.

JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Even if you own a small business, it isn't your ownership of that small business that makes you wealthy, it's the things you own besides your small business.
A few of the wealthiest Americans may have started out as small businessmen, but they can no longer be characterized as "small" businessmen once they have accumulated enough wealth to be described as "among the wealthiest Americans."
A small businessman is by definition one who earns a small amount of money from his business and has only a limited number of employees.
The corner grocery is a small business. A grocery chain with a number of affiliates -- Trader Joe's comes to mind -- is not a small business.
That's the way I see it anyway.
Auntie Bush
(17,528 posts)had less than 500 employes. That makes most businesses small businesses. If that is true...we need to change the definition of small business.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)500 employees with 500 computers can do a lot more than 500 employees with pens and pencils and big pads of paper.
Times have changed. The definition of a "small" business should too.
napkinz
(17,199 posts)SCVDem
(5,103 posts)You're a lying sack of crap, you're a lying sack of crap ..............
Sing along!
pacalo
(24,857 posts)...leads me to believe that someone in the CIA had to have given the original, unrevised version to the Republicans. Who else would have had access to the original?
siligut
(12,272 posts)BlueCheese
(2,522 posts)I guess it's curable, after all.
Cha
(319,134 posts)that in the OP that he was cbs now. thanks Blue
TexasTowelie
(127,383 posts)I recall a story a couple of months ago where he aligned the Democratic version of the story (the truth) rather than adopt GOP talking points. Hopefully the good journalistic work will impress TPTB at CBS.
malaise
(296,173 posts)That's the good part - they make up stuff and repeat it over and over - finally they are being called on it.
Rain Mcloud
(812 posts)and probably from the same petro industry funded thinktank as well.
I guess since the thinktank morons delete all their e-mail then they suppose that that is that.
Pssst,nothing goes away on the interwebitubes my young scholars. No charge for the hint and for the next lesson:
Shit versus Shinola
lastlib
(28,283 posts)timdog44
(1,388 posts)faith in the government. Republicans making things up!! I can't go on.
zentrum
(9,870 posts)....anything on the merits of their case. They only "win" by cheating, stealing, hiding ballots, being selected by partisan Supreme Court Justices and speaking in dog whistles. The party of Rove, Cheney, Cantor, Norquist---all a criminal organization.
Kokonoe
(2,485 posts)CatWoman
(80,290 posts)Segami
(14,923 posts)Historic NY
(40,045 posts)spanone
(141,640 posts)Segami
(14,923 posts)Zoeisright
(8,339 posts)Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)Who's going to jail.
My guess is he said that only because he was pissed at Nancy Pelosi for saying he was a weak speaker.
tblue37
(68,437 posts)"was a LIE"!
Why can't anyone call Republican lies lies?
Scurrilous
(38,687 posts)AllyCat
(18,853 posts)They have no substance.
peoli
(3,111 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)They lie. They cheat. They steal. They back stab.
Why do they exist?
brett_jv
(1,245 posts)"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."
I don't understand what he's saying here ... someone with more experience in this subject clue me in?
It sounds like he's saying that the GOP version is not 'fake' ... but rather, just an earlier, un-redacted version... And hence, in a sense, more 'real'.
Am I misreading that, or ???
BTW, how does this Garrett guy know what the CIA 'agreed' about, or 'what they did' in terms of removing references? Sounds like editorializing/guessing to me.
tiny elvis
(979 posts)the CIAs original version (of the object in the same phrase)
revised talking points being public statements
the email contained the concerns raised by the State Department
the CIA agreed with those concerns
so
The C.I.A. agreed with the concerns raised by the State Department (in the email)
Garrett was not clear
ctsnowman
(1,904 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)go along.
They mistakenly believed that he was still on the team.....
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)about this subject form the screeching Reps and the hollering media. This corrected chapter won't be represented publically at all.
madokie
(51,076 posts)week by a few here, huh.
By some of our 'alt media'
Makes what G4A was saying yesterday morning about being owed an apology by the alt media all the more sweeter.
It gets no better than this
MADem
(135,425 posts)And he's doing just that, under the imprimatur of a more respected news organization.
Major Garrett knows who his sources were, too. It'll get around, even if he doesn't say a fricken word.
Heathen57
(573 posts)proud to be.
If the blatant lies from this spectacle doesn't convince the Cons voters to rethink their support then they are hopeless. Well past ignorance and firmly into the zone of stupidity.
Blue Owl
(59,120 posts)Go fuck yourselves GOP
napkinz
(17,199 posts)Right now!
patrice
(47,992 posts)nt