Post by Weatherman on May 20, 2013 3:45:48 GMT -5
1. Why Would "Commentators" Describe This As A "Hell Week"?
All 3 "scandals" pretty much fell apart as scandals. Benghazi, if anything, was a "hell week" for ABC and Congressional Republicans as the "damning" emails turned out to have been doctored by Republicans and that is the only scandal regarding that issue. The AP story turns out to be about the burning of an al Qaeda double agent and a blow to national security making the subpoena for phone records highly defensible. Clearly, the most problematic is the mess with the IRS where mistakes were made in developing shortcuts to help with a backlog of work but nothing has surfaced to show political pressure to go after political enemies. Not much smoke here, which gets back to why commentators called this a hell week. My question is why the commentators on Sunday were still allowing play on stories that the Whitehouse changed the talking points on Benghazi when the only thing changed was the emails that were doctored by the GOP to make it look as thought the Whitehouse changed the talking points. Oh, the one change the Whitehouse did make was to change the singular "consulate" to a plural description to include the annex that was also attacked -- something that was even more accurate. You know, nobody asked who the Republican(s) were that doctored the emails -- the only real scandal so far uncovered -- no calls for ABC to release those name(s). Now how pathetic is that?
Reply to this
All 3 "scandals" pretty much fell apart as scandals. Benghazi, if anything, was a "hell week" for ABC and Congressional Republicans as the "damning" emails turned out to have been doctored by Republicans and that is the only scandal regarding that issue. The AP story turns out to be about the burning of an al Qaeda double agent and a blow to national security making the subpoena for phone records highly defensible. Clearly, the most problematic is the mess with the IRS where mistakes were made in developing shortcuts to help with a backlog of work but nothing has surfaced to show political pressure to go after political enemies. Not much smoke here, which gets back to why commentators called this a hell week. My question is why the commentators on Sunday were still allowing play on stories that the Whitehouse changed the talking points on Benghazi when the only thing changed was the emails that were doctored by the GOP to make it look as thought the Whitehouse changed the talking points. Oh, the one change the Whitehouse did make was to change the singular "consulate" to a plural description to include the annex that was also attacked -- something that was even more accurate. You know, nobody asked who the Republican(s) were that doctored the emails -- the only real scandal so far uncovered -- no calls for ABC to release those name(s). Now how pathetic is that?
Reply to this