[PassedOut]

A responsible republican speaks up:

Gates: Some Benghazi critics have "cartoonish" view of military capability

Quote

Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates forcefully defended the Obama administration on Sunday against charges that it did not do enough to prevent the tragedy in Benghazi, telling CBS' "Face the Nation" that some critics of the administration have a "cartoonish impression of military capabilities and military forces."

Gates, a Republican who was appointed by then-President George W. Bush in 2006 and agreed to stay through more than two years of President Obama's first term, repeatedly declined to criticize the policymakers who devised a response to the September 2012 attack on a U.S. diplomatic facility in Benghazi, Libya, that left four Americans dead, including the U.S. Ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens.

"Frankly, had I been in the job at the time, I think my decisions would have been just as theirs were," said Gates, now the chancellor of the College of William and Mary.

"Cartoonish" is such a charitable word for the House republicans.

[ArtK78]

 Flem72, on 2013-May-17, 09:53, said:

In a highly amusing development, it turns out that -- once again -- the assertions do not match the facts:

http://www.politico....ted-163979.html

Guys (not gender-specific): Can we be a bit more circumspect with the conclusions?

Seque to: my favorite news rant. In the 50s and 60s, Douglas Edwards and the early Cronkite would say something like "Reports have reached CBS news today that an unidentified senator has screwed the pooch. More information when it becomes available." Today, the same source info would be rendered: "Sen. So-and-so, WHO SOURCES SAY IS A REPUBLICAN FROM SOME SOUTHERN, BIGOTED STATE, has committed bestiality, the dog has died horribly, and Speaker Boehner, discussing THE BIGOTED REPUBLICAN AGENDA FOR LESS SPENDING AND MORE TAX CUTS, apparently enthusiastically endorses this behavior, saying: "Americans cannot stand by and walk the dog on this issue."

Please?

While I agree on the content of your hypothetical quote, that is not the way it is presented in the "mainstream media," as Fox is wont to call it.

Perhaps they should report it that way. It would be more accurate. Although, in most cases, it would probably be even more accurate to say "WHO SOURCES SAY IS A BIGOTED REPUBLICAN FROM SOME SOUTHERN STATE."

Specific names withheld to protect the innocent, assuming that there are any.

[hrothgar]

 Flem72, on 2013-May-17, 09:53, said:

In a highly amusing development, it turns out that -- once again -- the assertions do not match the facts:

You might want to pull your head out of your ass and learn something about attribution.

Worlds like "quote", "on record", "for attribution", "verbatim" and the like have very specific meanings in press reporting.

As for the Politico article the following paragraph seems rather telling:

Quote

To be clear, I believe that Karl's report contained errors. Karl stated in one paragraph that his report was based on "summaries" of emails, but elsewhere said he had "obtained 12 different versions of the talking points" and cited "White House emails reviewed by ABC News." Karl also stated unequivocally that Rhodes "wrote an email saying the State Department’s concerns needed to be addressed," and put the summary in a quote was attributed directly to Rhodes. (Schneider told POLITICO that ABC News had not reviewed emails directly and said "Karl's report could have been even clearer" about that.)

[Winstonm]

A reporter could attribute to and then paraphrase, but that is not what was done. The Republicans added specific information that was not in the quotes:

Quote

On Friday, Republicans leaked what they said was a quote from [national security adviser Ben] 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."

I have to give this round to PassedOut. It appears the Republicans were targeting Hillary's 2016 campaign with this buffoonery.

[kenberg]

I don't suppose it matters (not all hijackings are a crime) but what the hell are agency equities? Are there also agency inequities? Or does this have something to do with investments? Have they now been properly reflected? Should I care?

[Flem72]

OK, so now this is all mired up. I thought Karl's articles were the first source for any of this information on the talking point emails, while these articles assert that "Republicans" "leaked" Karl's summaries as quotes. Would one of you advocates please advise:

First, is my characterization of assertions in the articles to which posters refer accurate?

2nd, my understanding of all this is that Karl obtained summaries of the emails from a "source' at a time when the WH was refusing to pass on the actual emails. Right?

3rd, the reports quoted above claim that Karl's summaries were "leaked" by "Republicans" on Friday (May 10? can't be today) as email contents, or quotes, right? And I assume that by "Republicans" it is meant that these people were R congressfolks/senators/ operatives/spinmeisters, not that Karl's source is/was a republican?

What "Republican" did anything independently of Karl's summaries after the info was obtained by Karl, who is s/he? When the "quotes" were "leaked" by "Republicans", was the content of the "leak" explicitly sourced on Karl's reportage or was it not? or by "leaked" are we talking about event by which the info was provided to Karl by his source?

Is this a situation where a "Republican" read Karl's articles, and characterized as actual quotes what Karl clearly identified as summaries? or did someone simply say, 'this is what the emails say based on Karl's reportage'? IOW, will someone please point me to a source that identifies a Republican, or a Republican source, who did whatever was done on whatever Friday we are talking about. 'Cuz I'm not finding that either.
***************************
The rest of the _Politico_ report, for those who care about anal insertion and "Worlds [sic] like "quote", "on record", "for attribution", "verbatim" and the like [which] have very specific meanings in press reporting [note: three of which apparently not having been used at all,even in the looney reporting done by some in this situation]:

So what's going on here? Tapper's "U.S. government source" is likely drawing attention to the discrepancy between Karl's summary of the email and the actual content of the email in order to discredit ABC's report and Karl's sources. Indeed, on Tuesday afternoon the White House accused congressional Republicans of fabricating the emails cited in Karl's report. One thing you'll learn if you study political communications: Nothing seems to work so well as using one small error in a report to discredit the entire report. CNN's "U.S. government source" must be overjoyed that Tapper used the word "inaccurate" four times** when referring to a report that is, for the most part, accurate.

UPDATE (4:50 p.m.): Karl has addressed the new email, which he says "helps fill out the portrait of the inter-agency deliberations that went into shaping the now-discredited talking points." He writes, in part:

The source was not permitted to make copies of the original e-mails. The White House has refused multiple requests – from journalists, including myself, and from Republican leaders in Congress – to release the full e-mail exchanges.

The differences in the two versions are being taken by some as evidence that my source sought to intentionally mislead about the extent of State Department involvement in changing the talking points. The version I obtained makes specific reference to the State Department, while the version reported by CNN references only "all of the relevant equities" and does not single out State. [...]

I asked my original source today to explain the different wording on the Ben Rhodes e-mail, and the fact that the words "State Department" were not included in the e-mail provided to CNN's Tapper. [...] This was my source's response, via e-mail: "WH reply was after a long chain of email about State Dept concerns. So when WH emailer says, take into account all equities, he is talking about the State equities, since that is what the email chain was about."

The White House could still clear up this confusion by releasing the full e-mail transcripts that were provided for brief review by a select number of members of Congress earlier this year. If there's "no 'there' there," as President Obama himself claimed yesterday, a full release should help his case.

To be clear, I believe that Karl's report contained errors. Karl stated in one paragraph that his report was based on "summaries" of emails, but elsewhere said he had "obtained 12 different versions of the talking points" and cited "White House emails reviewed by ABC News." Karl also stated unequivocally that Rhodes "wrote an email saying the State Department's concerns needed to be addressed," and put the summary in a quote was attributed directly to Rhodes. (Schneider told POLITICO that ABC News had not reviewed emails directly and said "Karl's report could have been even clearer" about that.)

But I also agree with Karl's source when he says that Rhodes email included State Dept. concerns, and I agree with Karl when he says that The White House could still clear up this confusion.

**UPDATE (5:46 p.m.): CNN has since removed three of the four uses of the word "inaccurate" from its report. The remaining use, like those that have been removed, refers to "the inaccurate information" in the leaked email summaries.

********************************

[Flem72]

To be clear:

Is the underlying fact in all of this simply that Karl's reportage is what the posters' sources refer to as "Republican leaks"? and that in point of fact, no "Republicans" have represented the summaries to be quotes at all, except by reference to Karl's (and, I suppose, Atkinson's) reportage? and that Karl's reportage contained some ambiguities that have now been characterized by some as outright lying manipulation of email contents by Republican congressfolks/senators/ operatives/spinmeisters?

I'd really like to know, but , reading the posts, all I can see are intestinal walls and their contents....

[Winstonm]

 Flem72, on 2013-May-17, 17:04, said:

To be clear:

Is the underlying fact in all of this simply that Karl's reportage is what the posters' sources refer to as "Republican leaks"? and that in point of fact, no "Republicans" have represented the summaries to be quotes at all, except by reference to Karl's (and, I suppose, Atkinson's) reportage? and that Karl's reportage contained some ambiguities that have now been characterized by some as outright lying manipulation of email contents by Republican congressfolks/senators/ operatives/spinmeisters?

I'd really like to know, but , reading the posts, all I can see are intestinal walls and their contents....

If you really want to know, then first understand that Fox News basically acts as the mouthpiece for the farthest right of the Republican party and accurate reporting is low on the priority list for them. Just think for yourself. Sometimes the left is wrong; sometimes the right is wrong. Often they are all wrong. But don't allow any one source to color your thinking so strongly.

[hrothgar]

 Flem72, on 2013-May-17, 17:04, said:

I'd really like to know, but , reading the posts, all I can see are intestinal walls and their contents....

Anyone else wondering whether Flem72 is actually Luke Warm?

The ID dates back to before Jimmy's disappearance, but it could have been a sock puppet from long ago...

[Flem72]

 Winstonm, on 2013-May-17, 17:25, said:

If you really want to know, then first understand that Fox News basically acts as the mouthpiece for the farthest right of the Republican party and accurate reporting is low on the priority list for them. Just think for yourself. Sometimes the left is wrong; sometimes the right is wrong. Often they are all wrong. But don't allow any one source to color your thinking so strongly.

Winstonm, ole buddy, I don't need advice from you on this. I source widely, and in fact most of the sources you and your fellow travelers (no "commie" implications) cite I have long since dumped as unreliable/biased/whatever term you choose. But I'm glad to know that you use other sources also -- and they should include Fox, if only as a 'know your enemy" thing, as I view MSNBC, HuffPo and a couple others.

[Winstonm]

 Flem72, on 2013-May-17, 18:36, said:

Winstonm, ole buddy, I don't need advice from you on this. I source widely, and in fact most of the sources you and your fellow travelers (no "commie" implications) cite I have long since dumped as unreliable/biased/whatever term you choose. But I'm glad to know that you use other sources also -- and they should include Fox, if only as a 'know your enemy" thing, as I view MSNBC, HuffPo and a couple others.

I don't mind biases or slant. Fox is simply disingenuous, and that should not be tolerated.

[PassedOut]

 Flem72, on 2013-May-17, 16:41, said:

OK, so now this is all mired up. I thought Karl's articles were the first source for any of this information on the talking point emails, while these articles assert that "Republicans" "leaked" Karl's summaries as quotes. Would one of you advocates please advise:

First, is my characterization of assertions in the articles to which posters refer accurate?

2nd, my understanding of all this is that Karl obtained summaries of the emails from a "source' at a time when the WH was refusing to pass on the actual emails. Right?

3rd, the reports quoted above claim that Karl's summaries were "leaked" by "Republicans" on Friday (May 10? can't be today) as email contents, or quotes, right? And I assume that by "Republicans" it is meant that these people were R congressfolks/senators/ operatives/spinmeisters, not that Karl's source is/was a republican?

Okay, the ballyhooed stories about the emails turned out to be embellished. And the embellishments in those stories tended to push a particular political narrative. I don't recall that any of the house republicans who had read the original emails came forward to say, "Hey, those aren't really quotes."

We know what happened. Some of the administration's reviewers of the talking points wanted to phrase things to put their own organizations in the most favorable light. Others wanted to avoid making statements that might impede and investigation. From my experiences in large corporations, I can say that any document that undergoes revision by many hands will end up eviscerated of most content. Same with government, I'm sure. There is nothing unexpected about any of that. (Nor is it unexpected that opposing political operatives will leak embellished emails.) This whole episode is a big waste of time.

It's hard to know exactly why this issue has set the republicans in congress off to such an absurd degree. My hunch is that the rage goes back to the 2nd presidential debate where Romney had no idea that Obama had immediately identified the event as an act of terror.

[Winstonm]

Psychological makeup helps explain a lot of the rift.

Quote

Psychologists have found that conservatives are fundamentally more anxious than liberals, which may be why they typically desire stability, structure and clear answers even to complicated questions

[akwoo]

Part of what is going on here is that there is a significant portion of the population, well represented in Congress, who believe that the main role of the United States government is to organize Americans(*) into a gang of robbers(**) to rob the rest of the world.

Of course the State Department had considerations other than the safety of American diplomats and the safety of the ambassador in the lead-up and response to the Benghazi incident. Some of these considerations include the safety of American soldiers, the safety of Libyan civilians, the perception of the American government and military in the eyes of the Libyan population as well as the rest of the world, and future relations between the United States, Libya, and other countries in the Middle East and North Africa.

Those who think our nation should be a gang of robbers see these other considerations as treasonous. They don't really understand that other people don't consider these considerations treasonous. They want the State Department to admit to these other considerations, and think everyone will then consider this prima facie evidence that the Administration is treasonous.

From the State Department's point of view, these other considerations are obvious and normal, so obvious and normal that there is no need to admit to them. Of course they consider these other factors, and of course sometimes these other factors will mean that we don't do everything possible to protect diplomats or punish those who murder them. They don't see the point of admitting to having these other considerations - of course they have them - shouldn't everyone?

(*) By which some of them really mean white, male Americans.
(**) St. Augustine: "What are kingdoms without justice but gangs of robbers?"

[PassedOut]

Even though the droolers seem to have stopped spitting their Benghazi nonsense, more information is coming out about what really happened with the talking points that induced apoplexy: Petraeus had key role in Benghazi talking points

Quote

Recriminations in Washington began within hours. But it was not until a month later that it became clear that the CIA, rather than the State Department, maintained the most significant presence in Benghazi.

Near the diplomatic outpost was a CIA installation where about two dozen intelligence and security personnel were based. Their mission was to track weapons shipments out of the country and to identify the numerous militias operating in Benghazi.

Security at this annex was the responsibility of the CIA, not the State Department. But because the annex operated under diplomatic cover, its existence as an intelligence facility was classified.

The State Department and the White House became the primary focus of the public criticism.

The debate within the CIA

After Petraeus’s morning coffee on Sept. 14, the CIA’s Office of Terrorism Analysis sent an internal agency e-mail with the subject line: “FLASH coordination — white paper for HPSCI,” referring to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

The committee “has asked for unclassified points immediately that they can use in talking to the media,” the e-mail said.

Then, shifting into the first person, the office’s director, who had accompanied Petraeus to the coffee, wrote, “I have been asked to provide a bit on responsibility,” including “warnings we gave to Cairo prior to the demonstration, as well as material on warnings we issued prior to 9/11 anniversary.”

Included was a six-point draft that began, “We believe based on currently available information that the attacks in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired” by anti-American demonstrations elsewhere “and evolved” into assaults against “the U.S. consulate and subsequently its annex.”

It looks like Susan Rice was right all along and that the republicans who attacked her likely knew that she was right. This puts their doctoring of emails into better perspective.

[billw55]

 Winstonm, on 2013-May-17, 17:25, said:

If you really want to know, then first understand that Fox News basically acts as the mouthpiece for the farthest right of the Republican party and accurate reporting is low on the priority list for them.

It is true, but not especially more so than many other outlets that advocate for a particular political stance or party. It seems to be very difficult these days to find accurate reporting or trustworthy sources at all. In some ways, journalism has really failed as a profession.

[hrothgar]

 billw55, on 2013-May-22, 09:27, said:

It is true, but not especially more so than many other outlets that advocate for a particular political stance or party.

Actually, there are very significant differences between Fox News and the "Mainstream Media".

In particular, a wide number of surveys demonstrate that Fox News Viewers are significant less well informed about objective reality and facts than people who get their news from other sources. Its important to note: This doesn't necessarily demonstrate that watching Fox News makes people less well informed. Its very possible that Fox News attracts stupid viewers. (As I recall, The Daily Show tended to have the best informed viewers. Also many of these polls were conducted before the rise of MS-NBC which is pretty bad in its own right)

[mycroft]

I don't disagree with billw about his "it is true" comment. However, Fox isn't *supposed to be* "advocating for a particular political stance", unlike, say, the Great Orange Satan, or RedState, or WSWS.

We all know it is - until it's convenient for them to be "non-partisan", usually to save or spend money.

Don't get, and don't tend to see clips from, MS-NBC. So I can't tell how they're obviously-liberal-biased (it's clear from everyone they are) or whether liberal has its usual USAnian meaning (i.e. conservative).

[ArtK78]

As I view MSNBC (admittedly from a bias on the left), its reporting of events is accurate. It is only the discussion of the events that is slanted to the left. This is different from Fox, which reports the events with a bias.

[Winstonm]

Fox News will never let facts get in the way of (making up) a good story.