Quote:

---

Proof that Jackson Diehl and the New York Times editorial board are 'the left'? Proof that the NYTimes is trying to "shift the conversation from Obama’s initial failure in Libya to his ongoing failure in Libya"? Proof that "Obama’s former chief strategist David Axelrod" is 'the left"?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:


Of course it couldn't be the REPUBLICANS who are corrupt, could it?

After all, all they did was gin up a bunch of fake e-mail "quotes" and feed them to friendly reporters...

http://americablog.com/2013/05/gop-faked-benghazi-emails-cbs.html

Naaaaahhhh - that's not corruption, just dishonesty and incompetence.

Right?

---

Quote:

---

The Pinocchio Test


It has long been part of the Washington game for officials to discredit a news story by playing up errors in a relatively small part of it. Pfeiffer gives the impression that GOP operatives deliberately tried to “smear the president” with false, doctored e-mails.

But the reporters involved have indicated they were told by their sources that these were summaries, taken from notes of e-mails that could not be kept. The fact that slightly different versions of the e-mails were reported by different journalists suggests there were different note-takers as well.

Indeed, Republicans would have been foolish to seriously doctor e-mails that the White House at any moment could have released (and eventually did). Clearly, of course, Republicans would put their own spin on what the e-mails meant, as they did in the House report. Given that the e-mails were almost certain to leak once they were sent to Capitol Hill, it’s a wonder the White House did not proactively release them earlier.

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
"But the reporters involved have indicated they were told by their sources that these were summaries, taken from notes of e-mails that could not be kept. The fact that slightly different versions of the e-mails were reported by different journalists suggests there were different note-takers as well."

But were they reported that way? No. They were reported AS IF they were the actual emails. That in itself is a lie.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
"And a similar defense has arisen from the left of Obama on the issue. Here is Jackson Diehl of the Washington Post claiming that Benghazi was brought about by incompetence and carelessness. And here is the New York Times editorial board trying to shift the conversation from Obama’s initial failure in Libya to his ongoing failure in Libya. Liberal “defenses” of Obama and Clinton paint a picture of two hopelessly unqualified leaders.

It doesn’t get much better from there. As Pete noted this morning, Obama’s former chief strategist David Axelrod defended his former boss by saying that the government has become so vast and unwieldy that Obama couldn’t possibly know what his own government was doing or why it was doing it. The fact that Democrats can acknowledge this while still planning to make the government larger and less accountable shows the ideological nature of their obsession with expanding the state at the expense of the people."



Nah, he's corrupt too, just not in the traditional way.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/05/17/obamas-defenders-hes-not-
corrupt-just-dishonest-and-incompetent/

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
To address the original argument, Kiki, this entire thread didn't need "discussing". If you read the article, which is an EDITORIAL piece in the first place, you'd have read things like

Quote:

---

...the IRS systematically targeted conservative and pro-Israel groups in order to eviscerate the First Amendment rights of those who disagreed with President Obama (and at the direction of high-ranking elected Democrats)...

---

That pretty much takes this author's opinions right out of the realm of anyone whose opinion is worth discussing in the first place, in my opinion, so why bother? Let them have their fun; it means nothing.

---