Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

alp227

(32,018 posts)
Fri May 10, 2013, 02:31 AM May 2013

Benghazi Debate Focuses on Interpretation of Early E-Mail on Attackers

Source: New York Times

House Republicans on Thursday intensified their criticism of the Obama administration for its handling of the assault on the diplomatic compound in Benghazi, with Speaker John A. Boehner calling for the release of an e-mail that he said showed that State Department officials believed from the start that “Islamic terrorists” were linked to the attack but have declined to say so publicly.

Mr. Boehner’s demand, delivered the day after a dramatic hearing by a House committee, signaled that Republican leaders intend to continue portraying the attack as a major failure by the administration as well as a potentially effective issue against former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton if she runs for president in 2016.

“The State Department would not allow our committees to keep copies of this e-mail when it was reviewed,” Mr. Boehner said. “I would call on the president to order the State Department to release this e-mail so that the American people can see it.”

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/10/us/politics/benghazi-debate-focuses-on-interpretation-of-early-e-mail-on-attackers.html?pagewanted=all



The next 2 paragraphs show the way one Republican legislator spun an email:

During Wednesday’s hearing, Representative Trey Gowdy, Republican of South Carolina, read an excerpt from the e-mail, quoting what he said was a reference to the local militant group that carried out the attack, Ansar al-Shariah, as having links to “Islamic terrorists.”

But a copy of the e-mail reviewed by The New York Times indicates that A. Elizabeth Jones, the senior State Department official who wrote it, referred to “Islamic extremists,” not terrorists.
16 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

Iliyah

(25,111 posts)
1. Lets go back to 9/11/2001
Fri May 10, 2013, 02:38 AM
May 2013

I want to see those e-mails and do a extreme investigations of it as well.

Islamic extremists, not terrorist? WTF, these GOPers are nuts.

2014 DEM congress continue and kept with the WH still DEM.

LibGranny

(711 posts)
12. I'm so glad someone stated the obvious - why not all
Fri May 10, 2013, 09:39 AM
May 2013

this scrutiny/outrage/questioning after 9/11/01 and BEFORE we invaded Iraq? The repugs all seem to have short memories (or Alzheimers) and McSame is always pushing for war he can't fight in.

GCP

(8,166 posts)
2. Our tax dollars in action
Fri May 10, 2013, 02:40 AM
May 2013

The American people are not interested. They're preaching to the choir and the rest of us just wish they'd actually do something about the economy and jobs.

tofuandbeer

(1,314 posts)
3. If they could only put this much energy into things that will actually HELP the country...
Fri May 10, 2013, 02:42 AM
May 2013

instead of what is going to help them in 2016. Bastards....and taxes are paying their salaries—talk about dregs of society.

 

quadrature

(2,049 posts)
4. all the reports from Benghazi indicated terrorism.
Fri May 10, 2013, 03:07 AM
May 2013

all the other reports about Benghazi
indicated 'the video'.

who would you believe?

nenagh

(1,925 posts)
6. Personally, I'd like to see 'the video' on US daytime TV... especially in deeply Evangelical areas..
Fri May 10, 2013, 03:27 AM
May 2013

Exactly the same 'plot line' but use Jesus and his disciples where the film used Mohammad...

I'd just like to hear their heads explode....

 

quadrature

(2,049 posts)
7. the 'spontaneous demostration' at the annex included mortar bombs
Fri May 10, 2013, 08:06 AM
May 2013

is that close enough to exploding heads?

nenagh

(1,925 posts)
13. Apologies...my comment did not really answer your comment...and my comment was very poorly phrased..
Fri May 10, 2013, 09:48 AM
May 2013

as you rightly pointed out.

In fact, in further reading..I may have been totally wrong about the video itself...

At the point in the film, at which we see cunnilinguis preformed..I assumed that character was meant to be Muhammad..

Therefore, I found the film offensive to anyone of that faith as I thought it should be offensive to anyone of a Christian faith if Jesus was depicted the same way in a similar film.

But apparently that was a different character..I just didn't watch any further to understand.

Iliyah

(25,111 posts)
5. My government because of
Fri May 10, 2013, 03:26 AM
May 2013

2001 when it comes protecting this country and our people in other countries. Even after all the attacks before Pres O. Since Pres O, the neverending story of trying to bring him down and now H. Clinton. So tell me about those government secrets huh.

Response to alp227 (Original post)

itsrobert

(14,157 posts)
11. Thanks for your concern
Fri May 10, 2013, 08:52 AM
May 2013

I look forward to hearing more from you. I believe you will provide some interesting commentary as you expose yourself more and more.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
15. If I get this right, they are arguing that the case was not solved quickly enough?
Fri May 10, 2013, 10:06 AM
May 2013

Who did the attacks, and why aren't they the least teeny bit mad at them? Oh, and

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

ThomThom

(1,486 posts)
16. after Bush's terrorism all the time/ scare the hell out of us
Fri May 10, 2013, 11:04 AM
May 2013

it is refreshing that someone discusses an incident without trying to fan those flames
of course it was a terrorist attack who wasn't thinking that, terror is a tactic not a certain people
the question is who and why

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Benghazi Debate Focuses o...