# Re Bengazi post closed by Marley23 in Elections **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [May 12, 2013, 10:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-bengazi-post-closed-by-marley23-in-elections/658141 "2013-05-12T10:56:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2013, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-bengazi-post-closed-by-marley23-in-elections/658141/121 "2013-05-15T21:09:19Z")
This is actually all part of the Democrats’ strategy. This controversy will simmer somewhat, and the Republicans will refine and hone their weapons to use against her, and when Iowa rolls around, she will look at them and say, “What? You thought I was going to run?” And there they will be with trailerloads of razor sharp weapons that will be useless because they would only work on Hillary. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2013, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-bengazi-post-closed-by-marley23-in-elections/658141/122 "2013-05-15T21:32:48Z")
> [@For You](#): > > This is actually all part of the Democrats’ strategy. The Democrats (meaning the party) have essentially no say in who runs. It’s up to the individual candidates. Maybe she’s faking people out, but I think it’s more likely she’s taking a break and will decide over the next year or so if she wants to run again. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2013, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-bengazi-post-closed-by-marley23-in-elections/658141/123 "2013-05-15T22:18:12Z")
> [@mbetter](#): > > I disagree. Polls go in IMHO; in Elections (or GD) we expect you to state a **reason.** ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2013, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-bengazi-post-closed-by-marley23-in-elections/658141/124 "2013-05-15T22:49:19Z")
Because. ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2013, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-bengazi-post-closed-by-marley23-in-elections/658141/125 "2013-05-15T23:31:09Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > [As previously cited;](http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2012/10/22/in-benghazi-stevens-fatally-misjudged-risk-reward/) Sorry if I’m being dense. I’m not sure how that responds to what I said. Your link says that Amb. Stevens set his own travel plans. It does not say that he set his own security detail. Am I missing some sort of link? ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2013, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-bengazi-post-closed-by-marley23-in-elections/658141/126 "2013-05-16T01:19:43Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Not even that. I notice that Age Quod Agis hasn’t even commented on the fact that the email that blew the GOP up was a lie that the GOP itself told. > > Don’t let \*facts \*upset your argument. Just pretend those facts don’t exist and start complaining about something else! You haven’t heard me comment on that because, as I’ve said repeatedly, I’m reserving judgment on the whether the White House lied. I don’t think we know enough yet to tell. (I do, however, think we know enough to decide whether the Obama admin didn’t provide adequate security, since the Obama admin has conceded that they did not.) As for the idea that “the email that blew the GOP up was a lie that the GOP itself told,” that’s – at the very least – premature, and definitely inaccurate. The original “lie” was apparently based on unnamed source(s) statements, which were reported in, among other places, ABC News. Unless you’re contending that the reporter’s source(s) is a GOP member – which you cannot know – or that ABC News is a GOP member – which would be absurd – then it’s inaccurate to suggest that this entire story is based on a GOP lie. Apparently, in order to rebut reporting on the string of emails, someone (probably the White House) released part of one email string. They did not release the entire email string. Jake Tapper – the reporter to whom the partial email string was leaked – seems to think the verdict is still out on whether it actually undercuts the story, and [has asked the White House to release all of the emails](https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/334414285717524480). Even [David Axelrod thinks the White House should release all of the emails](http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/05/15/axelrod-white-house-should-release-benghazi-emails/). And naturally, the two reporters – one from the Weekly Standard, and one from ABC – have stood by their initial stories, and argued that the partial email doesn’t contradict or undercut their reporting. ([cite](http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/release-all-benghazi-emails_724486.html) and [cite](http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/more-details-on-benghazi-talking-points-emerge/)) Fortunately, [the White House today released about 100 pages of Benghazi emails](http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/15/white-house-releases-100-pages-of-benghazi-e-mails/?hpt=hp_t1). I have no idea if that’s a full release of all emails, or another partial release. I hope it’s full, and we’ll be able to get somewhere with it. ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2013, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-bengazi-post-closed-by-marley23-in-elections/658141/127 "2013-05-16T01:30:46Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > I said what they are accused of does not constitute a lie. No contradiction. No, you didn’t. But feel free to continue to wave your arms to distract from your prior posts. I’m done with this silliness. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2013, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-bengazi-post-closed-by-marley23-in-elections/658141/128 "2013-05-16T02:32:01Z")
> [@Xema](#): > > But someone did. Your [Atlantic Wire link](http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/05/benghazi-memo-drafts/65089/) shows that this happened from the Sept 14 12:23pm draft to the 4:42pm draft. > > That link offers this general statement, implying that the State Dept. was responsible for the changes: > The link also says that beneath each draft version will appear comments that describe why a change was made and who requested it - but those comments don’t appear for me. Is it known who changed “attacks” to “demonstrations” ? This scandal is over. Obama released all the emails today. ABC stirred the whole thing up by taking a staffer from Daryl Issa’s Office who misquoted one of the key emails. Your nit-picking over the difference in context between the use of the word ‘attacks’ and ‘demonstrations’ as those words were used with the adjective ‘spontaneous’ only shows how weak this ‘scandal’ really was. Your claim that something I linked to is “implying” that the State Dept. was responsible for the change from ‘attacks’ to ‘demonstrations’ is something we see a lot of from these trumped up scandal enthusiasts. That is the use of the word ‘implying’. I do not know who wrote the early revised version that contained the word ‘demonstrations’ but it was not Victoria Nuland nor was it anyone in the White House or higher up at the State Department. The CIA saw it as both a spontaneous attack that started with a protest or with a demonstration or a crowd of people gathered before an attack. That was their first analysis. That change in wording from attack to demonstrations was not Victoria Nuland’s request. It was made before it got to her. The Republican witch hunt got all energized by the false AP Jonathon Karl report last Friday by linking Nuland to Hillary Clinton. As it turns out what Nuland was concerned about - the naming of Ansar al Islam was also a concern of the CIA… There is a statement in there aside from Nuland’s that they should not mention specific groups or names since it could compromise the ongoing investigation. And there is a remark from the intelligence community that they had no actionable intel on the 15th of September that they could identify any group or individual as responsible for the attack. And Obama called it an ‘act of terror’ on September 12… so this whole thing has been bogus from the very start. Why would Obama conspire to hide the possibility of terrorists being behind it by ‘blaming it on a movie’ and then call it an act of terror in the Rose Garden? ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2013, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-bengazi-post-closed-by-marley23-in-elections/658141/129 "2013-05-16T02:39:54Z")
> [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](#): > > No, you didn’t. But feel free to continue to wave your arms to distract from your prior posts. I’m done with this silliness. You’ve been done for days, you just didn’t know it. ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2013, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-bengazi-post-closed-by-marley23-in-elections/658141/130 "2013-05-16T02:54:41Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Polls go in IMHO; in Elections (or GD) we expect you to state a **reason.** Bullshit. Oakminster didn’t state a reason for his opinion. Why the one-defense of what is your garden variety thread-shit by Oak? He’s starting to get into one(ish)-trick-pony territory with the drive-bys to slam Hillary. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2013, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-bengazi-post-closed-by-marley23-in-elections/658141/131 "2013-05-16T03:02:41Z")
> [@](#): > > Quote: What on earth is the potential lie that the Obama Administration lied? Originally Posted by NotfooledbyW > [@](#): > > Read some of the prior posts in this thread. - Today 02:39 AM > Age Quod Agis I wanted to know what you thought would be a lie, since you are of the opinion that there is great potential for a lie to be there. But here’s what comes close: > [@Xema](#): > > Yet what apparently has been demonstrated includes: > > - That the story about the attack originating from a demonstration sparked by an offensive video (as promulgated by Obama, Hillary & Susan Rice) was **entirely false** > > - That this story was entirely inconsistent with what was observed by those present during the attack > > - That no evidence of a demonstration linked to a video ever existed > > - That the talking points were \*\*edited to remove reference to the true story **and insert reference to the** fictional \*\*video demonstration > > So it appears there are just two possibilities: spectacular incompetence, or malfeasance. I see no citing of a specific lie in Xema’s commentary. There is talk about ‘falsehood’ but nothing we could call a ‘lie’ by anyone under attack. > [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](#): > > In case you’re being sincere – **malfeasance is lying**. It doesn’t matter whether they were under oath or not. \*\* **The government lying to the America people is bad.** However, lying to Congress – which is the accusation against Sec. Clinton – is a crime\*\*. > one would hope that everyone – no matter their political affiliation – would see something wrong with **the government lying about the reasons American civil servants were killed.** > And officials in the Obama admin thought it was more important to give the appearance that this was\*\* a “spontaneous” attack\*\*, unconnected to the deteriorating security situation in Libya. > > Or maybe they just wanted to appear strong on foreign issues before the election. **Or maybe they didn’t lie,** and they just screwed up. I don’t know. But I think it’s worth asking whether the Obama admin lied. > > But if you’re unwilling to admit that being\*\* lied to by a Democrat is bad,]. \*\* IF one doesn’t know whether anyone lied… one should not accuse people of lying. So, Age Quod Agis, what is the potential lie that you have in mind, so I can knock it down for you? ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2013, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-bengazi-post-closed-by-marley23-in-elections/658141/132 "2013-05-16T04:04:37Z")
> [@](#): > > And officials in the Obama admin thought it was more important to give the appearance that this was a “spontaneous” attack, unconnected to the deteriorating security situation in Libya. -Originally Posted by Age Quod Agis Do you think Petraeus testified after he resigned last November by not telling the truth to Congress to protect the Obama Administration. > [@](#): > > Darrell Issa: David Petraeus Carried Obama’s Water On Benghazi > > WASHINGTON – House Oversight Committee Chair Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) argued on Sunday that even the CIA’s statements on Benghazi are now suspect, because then-Director David Petraeus was likely just carrying the White House’s water in the aftermath of the terrorist attack. > > Since the Sept. 11, 2012, attack in Benghazi, Republicans have argued that the Obama administration attempted to cover up what happened and let political considerations drive its response. In particular, Republicans have criticized top officials for not labeling the events as a “terrorist attack” quickly enough. > > On NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday, host David Gregory said that his reporting had found that Petraeus “made it clear when he briefed top officials that there was a spontaneous element to this, that it was not completely known that this was a terrorist attack right away.” > > “You don’t give any credence to the notion that there was some fog of war, that there were conflicting circumstances what about what went on here?” he asked Issa. > > The congressman dismissed Petraeus’ comments, as well as those of former Ambassador Thomas Pickering, who led the State Department’s independent investigation into what happened in Benghazi. > > “David Petraeus said what the administration wanted him to say, is the indication. Ambassador Pickering heard what the administration wanted to hear,” Issa replied. > > It’s a serious charge to say that the CIA director was playing politics rather than being truthful. Gregory pressed Issa on this accusation, asking, “You’re saying that administration officials … bullied the CIA into saying what the political advisers in the White House wanted him to say?” > > Issa insisted that he wasn’t “making charges.” > > [HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0)…\_3262792.html? ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2013, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-bengazi-post-closed-by-marley23-in-elections/658141/133 "2013-05-16T04:06:01Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Your nit-picking over the difference in context between the use of the word ‘attacks’ and ‘demonstrations’ … You believe distinguishing between what did happen (an attack) and what did not (a demonstration) is nit-picking? > [@](#): > > Your claim that something I linked to is “implying” that the State Dept. was responsible for the change from ‘attacks’ to ‘demonstrations’ is something we see a lot of from these trumped up scandal enthusiasts. That is the use of the word ‘implying’. So when the Atlantic Wire says “That outline was then reviewed by the State Department, and went through a number of iterations before being distributed …” you believe it’s somehow incorrect to say they are implying that the State Department made changes? > [@](#): > > The CIA saw it as both a spontaneous attack that started with a protest or with a demonstration or a crowd of people gathered before an attack. That was their first analysis. But the CIA’s initial draft makes no reference to a demonstration in Benghazi - only to an attack. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2013, 5:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-bengazi-post-closed-by-marley23-in-elections/658141/134 "2013-05-16T05:54:29Z")
Clearly if there was no demonstration, then instead of a “attack by terrorists” it was, in reality, a “terrorist attack”! And people are asking a lot of questions about that! ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2013, 6:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-bengazi-post-closed-by-marley23-in-elections/658141/135 "2013-05-16T06:21:49Z")
> [@Xema](#): > > (A) You believe distinguishing between what did happen (an attack) and what did not (a demonstration) is nit-picking? > (B) But the CIA’s initial draft makes no reference to a demonstration in Benghazi - only to an attack. Re/A No the point is that in the final version the attack was called an assault. The attack was not minimized… in fact an assault leaves a stronger impression that the attack used heavy weapons and was deliberate. You see it would have been redundant and incorrect to use attacks and assault together… The assault was not necessarily inspired by the movie. > [@](#): > > The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a **direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex.** There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations. Re/B What matters is not even scandal monger Daryl Issa has suggested that Victoria Nuland struck the word ‘attack’ and inserted ‘demonstrations’. Now that the emails are out, Issa could certainly get that bit of news out there. It looks like to me there were two originals started at near the same time. The timing of the emails show that Nuland received the version that had ‘demonstrations’ already in it. Your dream for a scandal has gone up in released emails. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2013, 6:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-bengazi-post-closed-by-marley23-in-elections/658141/136 "2013-05-16T06:36:05Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally Posted by Xema View Post > > (A) You believe distinguishing between what did happen (an attack) and what did not (a demonstration) is nit-picking? > > (B) But the CIA’s initial draft makes no reference to a demonstration in Benghazi - only to an attack. The first version was probably changed by the drafters when they realized that it did not make sense to tell Congress that the ‘attacks’ evolved into a ‘direct assault’… Petraeus testified that there was a spontaneous element to the attack which is what the Intel Community originally thought. And that the protest evolved into an attack.. So no lie or distortion there. And Obama called it an act of terror on September 12. Remember when Romney was stunned in the second debate to learn that? > [@](#): > > We believe based on currently available information that the attacks in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2013, 11:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-bengazi-post-closed-by-marley23-in-elections/658141/137 "2013-05-16T11:08:46Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally Posted by Xema View Post (B) But the CIA’s initial draft makes no reference to a demonstration in Benghazi - only to an attack. The second bullet in the original draft and all subsequent drafts describe a “crowd” comprised of … Remember this was a work in progress and ‘talking points’ for the House of Reps. If you wish to savage the White House as committing what Cheney calls the biggest scandal of his lifetime are you ready to stake that claim on the difference between ‘crowd’ and ‘demonstration’? ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2013, 11:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-bengazi-post-closed-by-marley23-in-elections/658141/138 "2013-05-16T11:25:54Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > This scandal is over. > > Obama released all the emails today. Did they? [Here are all the emails released by the White House](http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/15/white-house-releases-100-pages-of-benghazi-e-mails/?hpt=hp_t1). The attacks began on Sept 11 and went into the early morning on Sept 12 (Middle East time). But the emails start on Sept 14 (DC time). I guess it’s possible that there were no emails on the issue for 2-3 days, but I’m not sure that would make sense. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > I see no citing of a specific lie in Xema’s commentary. There is talk about ‘falsehood’ but nothing we could call a ‘lie’ by anyone under attack. Again, I have the strange sensation that I’m being trolled. You managed to quote Xema’s post, and you even bolded and underlined certain parts. But you somehow avoided the parts that specifically addressed the alleged lies. Odd. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > IF one doesn’t know whether anyone lied… one should not accuse people of lying. This is what kills me. I’ve been carefully trying to avoid saying that the Obama admin lied. In the post you (selectively) quoted, you even quoted me saying this: > [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > Or maybe they didn’t lie, and they just screwed up. I don’t know. [And later on, I said this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16290926&postcount=102): > [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > And if it turns out that the Obama admin did lie – and I think the jury’s still out on that one – then that’s shameful, but not exactly world shattering. And yet you take a post where I argue that excusing a lie simply because it comes from the Obama admin is not a good idea, and you somehow concoct an interpretation that I’ve accused the Obama admin of lying. I’m sure you think the scandal is over. But if it’s all the same to you, I’m not going to take your word for it, since you seem to have misinterpreted several fairly straightforward posts. I’ll go ahead and reserve judgment until the facts are in. ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2013, 11:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-bengazi-post-closed-by-marley23-in-elections/658141/139 "2013-05-16T11:58:08Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Re/A No the point is that in the final version the attack was called an assault. My comment was a direct response to your statement about “nit-picking over the difference in context between the use of the word ‘attacks’ and ‘demonstrations’ …”. How is a new statement about an attack vs. an assault relevant to this? > [@](#): > > You see it would have been redundant and incorrect to use attacks and assault together… The CIA evidently does not agree - they did exactly this in the first item of the first draft of the talking points (which you have quoted in one of your posts). > [@](#): > > The assault was not necessarily inspired by the movie. There’s no evidence of anything that happened in Benghazi being inspired by the movie, nor of anyone present there believing or claiming it did. Thus the desire to determine why and how the movie became central to the explanations used by Obama, Hillary and Rice. This sort of inquiry is normal when folks with access to the truth spin a false (and plausibly self-serving) tale - and it’s how the word “lie” comes to be part of the discussion. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2013, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-bengazi-post-closed-by-marley23-in-elections/658141/140 "2013-05-16T16:09:33Z")
> [@Xema](#): > > My comment was a direct response to your statement about “nit-picking over the difference in context between the use of the word ‘attacks’ and ‘demonstrations’ …”. How is a new statement about an attack vs. an assault relevant. You did not respond “in context” of all that was written by me or the CIA/originator of the talking points. The CIA started the talking points with words like spontaneous and ‘a crowd’ and that fact destroys your entire argument. Your GOP investigators saw the emails and went on to deceive the public about what was in them. Anyway, this is what I wrote and your major response is a complaint about me, not a refutation of my facts. > [@](#): > > “Your nit-picking over the difference in context between the use of the word ‘attacks’ and ‘demonstrations’ as those words were used with the adjective ‘spontaneous’ only shows how weak this ‘scandal’ really was.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-bengazi-post-closed-by-marley23-in-elections/658141.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-bengazi-post-closed-by-marley23-in-elections/658141.md?page=8)