Benghazi Hearings

I have read a few reports so far I wonder what News will air the story tonight. 

obviously you do not have very good listening skills because the AP would never withhold or distort any facts.

When the Bulls/Heat game was on, I was surfing Twitter and I saw this exchange:

@davidaxelrod: Short-handed Bulls are giving the Heat all they can handle!

@DocNelson_68W: You know who else was short handed? Ambassador Chris Stevens. "@davidaxelrod- Short-handed Bulls are giving the Heat all they can handle!"

It's terrible, but awesome at the same time.

Doc Nelson is a former Spec Ops Doc.  He has been all-over the Benghazi thing from the get-go.

How about the testimony regarding the e-mail from Nuland the day after Benghazi and several days before Rice was sent out on the Sunday shows in which Nuland referred to what occurred at Bengahzi as being perpetrated by a group specifically linked to Al Quida( I can never spell it).  !!!!! ANd I've read several stories on the testimony this afternoon and no one is mentioning that small exchange.  Am I crazy, but isn't that kind of a BIG thing? An e-mail from the State department spokesperson in which DOS acknowledges that there was an "attack" and it was perpetrated by a certain extremist group linked to Al Quida, before Rice went out. 

I've seen thousands of people testify in my life time, and my personal belief is that Mr. Hicks was telling the truth.  I found him very credible.

But in order for any thing that happened today to matter, the press is going to have to go after it, they are going to have to have a "Watergate" type moment, the press is going to have to believe it's important enough to investigate and expose...  And, I don't believe that will ever happen given the way the press covers this administration.   

Right...because this is on the level of Watergate.  Are you saying the POTUS was in on covering up what happened in Benghazi?  (that's the first stretch)  How 'bout taking this stretch and stating it's true and you really, really think the press would avoid breaking that story?  Sorry, that's an even bigger stretch than the first stretch.  To compare this to Watergate is ridiculous in my opinion.   

The press makes its dough on building up and tearing down.  Always has, always will.  If the story's out there, and they find it, they will make $$$ off of it.  I find it hard to believe a reporter (from any news organization) is going to come up with incriminating evidence and then not report it.  Sorry.

btw, one more addition.  The banging of the Benghazi drum in my opinion, is purely political.  The GOP is banking on disparaging President Obama.  Why would they go after a 2nd-term president?  Simple.  Right now, whoever the Democrats put out there in '16 will be the 2nd or 3rd best campaigner on the Democratic side following 2 former presidents, Clinton and Obama.  If the GOP can throw enough mud at the POTUS, perhaps some can stick and weaken his effect on the '16 race.  Politics is a rough game.

Agreed, nobody was killed in Watergate.

I believe the point that Brock was trying to make (correct me if I'm wrong, Brock) is that the press is so favorable to this administration that they wouldn't even attempt to look for incriminating evidence.

If there is (depends on what the definition of "is" is.  Sorry, couldn't resist) a coverup, then the comparison to Watergate is apt.   Boiled down, it's the government lying to the people, for no other reason than to CYA.  I don't care if it's the POTUS or DOS... it's a bad scene, man.

We're all rational folks.  Of course it was a mess in Benghazi.  The Watergate comparison insinuates there is a cover-up involving the POTUS.  Do you honestly believe that's not politically motivated? 

No, DOS is not the POTUS.  If you want to use the comparison of Watergate, you best come with some proof of the POTUS' involvement.  I firmly believe the mud's being slung in an effort to get some to stick.  I wish the GOP good luck with that.

As for the press not looking into it, yeah right.  The "press" includes Fox News, correct?  Are there not a ton of right-wing outlets out there as well?  btw, to think the mainstream media, or as Sarah Barracuda calls them, the "lame stream media," would sit on information or ignore information, at the expense of a firm story is in my opinion, ridiculous.  It would be ratings gold, period.

Thanks for the either/or choice.  

Regarding the media, the "mainstream media" can't win in your book unless they are able to sully the POTUS.  Getting into that discussion usually doesn't end well, so I'll smile and walk away.

When you've got real info. tying the POTUS to a Benghazi cover-up, get back to me.  

I don't think it's so much about the presidents involvement I think it's more of his complete lack of involvement that is the issue.  Nobody will say where he was or what he was doing the night of the attack which in and of itself seems odd.

Here is a pretty good summary of the questions that need to be answered.  This is written by Ted Cruz today and obviously he's a partisan, but show me what's factually incorrect and where his questions aren't relevant.

http://www.cruz.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=342655

I just saw this story and thought of you.  (not sure if that's good or bad)

Gutfeld Slams Obama’s ‘Scandal Condom’ (The Media) For Covering Cleveland, Arias, Ignoring Benghazi

Add in things like what Scoob mentioned earlier about the AP dressing up the testimony today and it starts to paint a picture.  They're far more concerned about Jodi Arias then they are Benghazi.

Ignoring all other aspects of the situation, the fact that Obama has not actively pursued an investigation into what really happened is, as best, apathy, and at worst, active collaboration in hiding the truth (whatever it may be). 

You do not have to be actively involved in the situation to be guilty of conspiracy to cover it up.

He took Clinton's word for it that everything was fine and began defending the DOS's actions.  All of this started just a day after the attacks.  Now it's too late to go back even if he DID find out the truth.

The fact that you have whistle blowers who have NOTHING to gain and a lot to lose by coming out and testifying shows me there is WAY more to this than the administration is willing to admit.

Ummm...I didn't compare THIS event to Watergate, I said: "they [the press] is going to have to have a Watergate moment..."  Watergate being the polestar for political investigative journalism.  The reference to Watergate was a reference to the press leading the investigation of the story and uncovering whatever happened.  Read in Context....  Never said Prez was involved.  Frankly the one thing we do know right now, is we don't know what occurred. 

Regarding your incredulity about the press not reporting stories, perhaps you should look at some historical incidents where the press has both under reported and over reported issues in an attempt to influence politics directly and through public opinion.  To say or believe otherwise is to simply ignore history.  It's not a new phenomena it dates back to almost the beginning of news paper.  We know for a fact, that through out AMerican history influential newspaper owners and editors have specifically attempted, and been successful, in not simply reporting news stories, but using their media outlets to influence politics, shape policy.  They have accomplished this through selective reporting, slanted articles, and yes at times the use of improper influences.  (Yup there's history of politicians buying support from media outlets.)  I'll take the flip side of the argument and say I find it hard to believe that news paper owners and editorial staff DON"T use their paper to pedal political influence.  I'll base my opinion on the history of the press and the history of human nature.

I'm not saying all or even most in the press are dirty, corrupt, or act improperly.  But to suggest that it is impossible for "reporters" to be anything but paragons of virtue is ridiculous and ignores history.  To think that back room deals for endorsements haven't occurred is in my opinion foolish. 

Again If you take the time to read my post in context, the meaning of my Watergate statement is obvious, the statement was about the investigative journalism of a potential political scandal, not a direct comparison of this to Watergate. 

I commit a murder.  You find out about it and then help hide evidence and/or impede the police investigation.  You can be charged as an accomplice after the fact. You become part of the conspiracy after the act has been committed.

I suppose it gets into a slight gray area.  Is not pushing an investigation the same as covering it up?  In my book by not actively pushing for answers I say yes.  Obama is trying to cover up mistakes by his administration to prevent himself from looking bad.

CD, here's an example of what you're describing.   An investigative reporter trying to get to the bottom of things.  Then, you see how well that's received both by the administration and CBS.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/05/the-posts-sharyl-attkisson-piece-163496.html