The Republicans say it's not about politics -- that it's not about smearing Hillary Clinton, nor challenging the integrity of the Office of the Commander in Chief
-- yet their actions, their Sunday-words, and now their Fund-Raisers, show the opposite to actually be the case:
Republicans Fundraise Off Benghazi ‘Coverup’
Igor Bobic, livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com -- May 10, 2013
The National Republican Campaign Committee is appealing to its supporters for funds in the wake of new developments about the deadly Benghazi, Libya attacks that occurred last year.
"Benghazi was a coverup," the fundraising page reads, featuring an image of President Barack Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. "Demand answers."
[...]
The National Republican Campaign Committee has front-paged the
"Cover Up" -- "Demand Answers" appeal ...
Latest Benghazi Bombshell: Talking Points Changed 12 Times, Terror References Edited Out
by Matt Gorman, NRCC, nrcc.org -- May 10, 2013
ABC News’ Jonathan Karl is reporting a bombshell in the Obama Administration’s cover-up of the terrorist attack in Benghazi.
According to his report, the CIA drafted talking points immediately following the attack. In those talking points, the CIA referenced al-Qaeda and their affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia -- who is now suspected of committing the attack.
[...]
The Republican torch carriers cite ABC News’ Jonathan Karl as the source for the latest
we-lost tantrum. Karl apparently doesn't like how inter-agency documents get edited, when a group of agencies each want a say in how unfolding events, get explained ...
and yes (OMG) perceptions get managed!
We are through the "looking glass" now people ... where Politicians actually put a spin on Talking Points. Alert the Media! There's actually gambling in Vegas.
Here is the crux of Jonathan Karl's "bombshell objections" -- now being used for fundraising.
Paragraph re-writes must be stopped at all costs -- not unless they are first cleared by Karl (and ABC News?) first:
Exclusive: Benghazi Talking Points Underwent 12 Revisions, Scrubbed of Terror Reference
by Jonathan Karl, abcnews.go.com -- May 10, 2013
[...]
State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland raised specific objections to this paragraph drafted by the CIA in its earlier versions of the talking points:
“The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al-Qa’ida in Benghazi and eastern Libya. These noted that, since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador’s convoy. We cannot rule out the individuals has previously surveilled the U.S. facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks.”
In an email to officials at the White House and the intelligence agencies, State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland took issue with including that information because it “could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either? Concerned …”
The paragraph was entirely deleted.
Like the final version used by Ambassador Rice on the Sunday shows, the CIA’s first drafts said the attack appeared to have been “spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo” but the CIA version went on to say, “That being said, we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.” The draft went on to specifically name the al Qaeda-affiliated group named Ansar al-Sharia.
[...]
Oooh bombs are abursting.
How dare State consider how Congress might over-react -- that is the sole domain of the Republican Congress, don't they know?
When they choose to over-react ...
I wonder if Jonathan Karl will ever demand to get to the bottom of these similar embassy events, and demand to know WHO re-edited these Press Releases?
Will ABC News ever pursue How and Why those Embassy PR statements were "managed"? And for what nefarious undisclosed purpose(s)? Afterall inquiring minds have a right to know, if Jonathan Karl's line of reasoning is to be believed. (And as the Republican's National Campaign Committee has now dutifully done.)
In today's 24/7 outrage age -- strike-throughs, grammar-checks, and audience language gauging -- are all signs of ill-intent.
Apparently, editorial Search and Replaces = Cover Ups, in today's GOP era of non-stop selective outrage of all things Democratic.
I guess the Morality Police, have decided to widen their focus to Editing and Thought patrols too. (Given their success with enforcing Morality, apparently.)
George Orwell would be so proud ... with how far they gotten, in their group-think agendas -- all with so little actual thought, actually behind them.