Benghazi Hearings (Page 2)
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-09 11:18 AM TriRSquared - 2013-05-09 8:50 AM Are you saying that the POTUS was actvely involved with the cover-up or not? If he was "actively involved" with the cover up, then he's a co-conspirator. If he wasn't aware the cover up was taking place, even if it could be argued he should have known, he's not. jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-09 9:34 AM TriRSquared - 2013-05-09 7:04 AM Um...I kinda think you do. I'm pretty sure the legal definition as well as the dictionary definition of conspiracy is pretty clear that one has to be aware that one is comitting an illegal or subversive act in order to be gulty of a conspiracy. I'm not sure how one could be guilty of conspiracy without being an active participant in the cover up, unless he had first-hand knowlege that a cover up was taking place and chose to ignore it. I don't think anyone's made that allegation, have they? ChineseDemocracy - 2013-05-08 10:10 PM When you've got real info. tying the POTUS to a Benghazi cover-up, get back to me. 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. 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. I'm saying this. I believe the DOS screwed up. They may or may not have told POTUS what they did to screw it up. If they did tell him then yes he a co-conspirator. If they did not tell him he is complicit in not actively investigating what really happened. Either way he's in the wrong. Edited by TriRSquared 2013-05-09 10:35 AM |
|
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-09 10:18 AM TriRSquared - 2013-05-09 8:50 AM Are you saying that the POTUS was actvely involved with the cover-up or not? If he was "actively involved" with the cover up, then he's a co-conspirator. If he wasn't aware the cover up was taking place, even if it could be argued he should have known, he's not. jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-09 9:34 AM TriRSquared - 2013-05-09 7:04 AM Um...I kinda think you do. I'm pretty sure the legal definition as well as the dictionary definition of conspiracy is pretty clear that one has to be aware that one is comitting an illegal or subversive act in order to be gulty of a conspiracy. I'm not sure how one could be guilty of conspiracy without being an active participant in the cover up, unless he had first-hand knowlege that a cover up was taking place and chose to ignore it. I don't think anyone's made that allegation, have they? ChineseDemocracy - 2013-05-08 10:10 PM When you've got real info. tying the POTUS to a Benghazi cover-up, get back to me. 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. 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. Now, based on testimony, we know that the administration knew it was a terrorist attack linked to Al Qaeda almost immediately. So why would the president and everyone in his administration make such a careless mistake to continue blaming the youtube video only weeks before the election? Hmmm "That is what we saw play out the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity. It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well – for as the city outside these walls makes clear, we are a country that has welcomed people of every race and religion. We are home to Muslims who worship across our country. We not only respect the freedom of religion – we have laws that protect individuals from being harmed because of how they look or what they believe. We understand why people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them." - Obama Just out of curiosity jmk, what's your thoughts on this whole thing? There's no question Benghazi was a mess, but do you think we shouldn't investigate it and just let it go as a "well that sucked" type of event.Edited by tuwood 2013-05-09 10:47 AM |
![]() ![]() |
Expert ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() crusevegas - 2013-05-08 8:06 PM ChineseDemocracy - 2013-05-08 4:39 PM Brock Samson - 2013-05-08 7:11 PM To compare this to Watergate is ridiculous in my opinion. 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. Agreed, nobody was killed in Watergate. Do you work for Fox? They completely twist someone's words into crap. CD isn't implying that situation wasn't tragic, he's just saying that it wasn't "Treason". It was an "attack" by foreign extremists on our Consulate. Extremely tragic. And Clinton was cleared by an independent commission. So... this comes across to me as a witch hunt. Edited by KateTri1 2013-05-09 11:19 AM |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() KateTri1 - 2013-05-09 12:09 PM crusevegas - 2013-05-08 8:06 PM ChineseDemocracy - 2013-05-08 4:39 PM Brock Samson - 2013-05-08 7:11 PM To compare this to Watergate is ridiculous in my opinion. 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. Agreed, nobody was killed in Watergate. Do you work for Fox? They completely twist someone's words into crap. CD isn't implying that situation wasn't tragic, he's just saying that it wasn't "Treason". It was an "attack" by foreign extremists on our Consulate. Extremely tragic. And Clinton was cleared by an independent commission. So... this comes across to me as a witch hunt. How is it a "witch hunt" when you have witnesses that conflict with Clinton's and the White House's story? The independent commission did not have access to these witnesses at the time of Clinton's hearing. In fact the government was completely uncooperative in allowing any access to these survivors before the hearing. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() KateTri1 - 2013-05-09 11:09 AM crusevegas - 2013-05-08 8:06 PM ChineseDemocracy - 2013-05-08 4:39 PM Brock Samson - 2013-05-08 7:11 PM To compare this to Watergate is ridiculous in my opinion. 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. Agreed, nobody was killed in Watergate. Do you work for Fox? They completely twist someone's words into crap. CD isn't implying that situation wasn't tragic, he's just saying that it wasn't "Treason". It was an "attack" by foreign extremists on our Consulate. Extremely tragic. And Clinton was cleared by an independent commission. So... this comes across to me as a witch hunt. Independent Commission that didn't interview all of the witnesses we're now hearing from. Great commission. As for the comment that this is purely political. I give you this: One of the things that we know going into combat is that Americans don't leave each other behind. Someone will come for us. Those former SEALS who went against orders to help the consulate did so because they thought someone had their back. They held-off the attackers for 7 HOURS!!! They had eyes on targets, they were begging for anything and nothing was sent. No jets flew from Sigonella to Benghazi which would've taken 1 hour. Even if it took them 2 hours to find a pilot and arm a plane, they could've been there for them with something. They expected someone to have their backs, but nobody came for them. That in and of itself is shameful and is worth all of the stress from this to the President and Hillary Clinton. They only react when the Media does. Otherwise, they give a sound byte and walk on. If nothing else, this serves as a reminder that when people are in harms way, you give them layers of support. If you don't have the support to give, you don't send them. It seems like we're learning that lesson with Syria.
|
![]() ![]() |
Expert ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() A witch hunt? Of whom? Hillary? Regardless of partisan affiliation - surely the hearings have shown that the Video was never the cause nor the cause identified by those closest to the event - yet it was pushed by the Obama folks for over 2 weeks - AND they still have the guy who posted it in jail...hows that for justice? Not one person has been brought to justice who was part of the attack and it would seem there is limited interest in reporting the story in the press. The fact that 3 career diplomats came forward to voice their concerns and be heard should resonate to both sides of the aisle and all of us - this should not be an R/D issue but one for all Americans should support so that our diplomats know we have their back regardless of who is in office. Secondly - transparency and culpability should be virtues we want from our leaders otherwise we might as well do away with all our rights and just say "yes sir" to everything and bury our heads in the sand Accountability is key - in life, work or government |
|
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Consider this. Right after Hillary made her infamous "What difference, at this point, does it make?" statement, she added one more: "It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator." So, aren't these hearings essential to doing just that? After all, this is the the first time that the American public is hearing from people who were on the scene describing what happened, and under oath to boot. I don't understand how anyone could then describe this hearing as unnecessary, un-newsworthy or a "witch hunt". So, what did we learn? For starters, we learned that our State Department in Libya regarded the attack as a terrorist attack from the outset, that the youtube video was a "non-event" in Libya and that there was never any protest outside the Libyan consulate. We also know that all of this information was conveyed directly to Sec. of State Hillary Clinton by State Department official Gregory Hicks. This should have left no question, nor any room for confusion, about who was behind the attack or what caused it. This means that the "Youtube video" story that was being sold to the American public was either completely fabricated or "borrowed" from the Egyptian embassy incident to explain the attack by someone at the State Department. The story was either created with Hillary Clinton's direct knowledge or she participated in the cover-up by holding her silence as soon as the Obama and Susan Rice went to the public with a story she knew to be false. At the very least, this should end Hillary Clinton's political career. She was either behind a lie or complicit in a lie about a major international incident involving the murder of four Americans, including an ambassador. As further indication of Clinton's culpability, we have her direct subordinate and former lawyer trying to intimidate direct witnesses to the events into refusing to participate in a congressional investigation. Hillary needs to be brought up on charges. The open question is whether Obama and Rice knew the story they were selling was false. The exploration of that issue is where this investigation needs to go next. If Obama did know, then this incident is worse than Watergate. In fact, the parallels are eerily similar. Both incidents involved trying to improve the chances of the presidents' re-elections. Both involved cover-ups at the highest level and direct lies told to the American public by the presidents. The difference, as has already been pointed out, is that Benghazi was also an international (not just domestic) incident involving the murder of four Americans, including an ambassador. |
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() KateTri1 - 2013-05-09 12:09 PM crusevegas - 2013-05-08 8:06 PM ChineseDemocracy - 2013-05-08 4:39 PM Brock Samson - 2013-05-08 7:11 PM To compare this to Watergate is ridiculous in my opinion. 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. Agreed, nobody was killed in Watergate. Do you work for Fox? They completely twist someone's words into crap. CD isn't implying that situation wasn't tragic, he's just saying that it wasn't "Treason". It was an "attack" by foreign extremists on our Consulate. Extremely tragic. And Clinton was cleared by an independent commission. So... this comes across to me as a witch hunt.
Now on to the "independent" Administrative Review Board (ARB) report, not really independent. Additionally one of the conclusions that "cleared Clinton" found "systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies" at the State Department relating to the Benghazi incident. So I've always been curious how there can be systemic failures of leadership and management, but yet conclude that no leaders or managers were at fault? |
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() ChineseDemocracy - 2013-05-08 5:39 PM 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. Here is the only problem with that... the "truth" is optional... and they still make plenty of money off "reporting" on Lohan. They make their "money" either way. And yes, it is political. The oposition is trying to rub Obama and his administration through the mud. Why? Because Obama made it political. The only problem is he hung the life a of 4 American's out to dry and then covered it up because he din't want to look bad during an election. Hummm... politicizing a serious mistake.... making a mistake costing lives and politicizing it. Tough to choice to make there.... Edited by powerman 2013-05-09 1:27 PM |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() powerman - 2013-05-09 1:23 PM Here is the only problem with that... the "truth" is optional... and they still make plenty of money off "reporting" on Lohan. They make their "money" either way. I'll also add that the major three networks are also in CYA-mode over this. After all, they bought the Administration's youtube video cover story hook, line and sinker without bothering to do their own fact-checking. Even after the fact, they never bothered to investigate what really happened on the ground where it happened-- or they knew the real story and decided not to report it. Now, they have the real story being told by the people who were there and they still aren't reporting it or, as in the the case of the AP story I read yesterday, they are grossly misrepresenting the story. BTW, the headline from that story: "Former US Official describes Libya attack"... how does that in any way describe what yesterday's hearings were really about? The hearings were about high-ranking witnesses to the actual events presenting a story completely at odds with the one presented to the American public. Worse, the story didn't even appear on the "front page" of the online version of my major city newspaper this morning. |
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() scoobysdad - 2013-05-09 12:44 PM powerman - 2013-05-09 1:23 PM I'll also add that the major three networks are also in CYA-mode over this. After all, they bought the Administration's youtube video cover story hook, line and sinker without bothering to do their own fact-checking. Even after the fact, they never bothered to investigate what really happened on the ground where it happened-- or they knew the real story and decided not to report it. Now, they have the real story being told by the people who were there and they still aren't reporting it or, as in the the case of the AP story I read yesterday, they are grossly misrepresenting the story. BTW, the headline from that story: "Former US Official describes Libya attack"... how does that in any way describe what yesterday's hearings were really about? The hearings were about high-ranking witnesses to the actual events presenting a story completely at odds with the one presented to the American public. Worse, the story didn't even appear on the "front page" of the online version of my major city newspaper this morning. Here is the only problem with that... the "truth" is optional... and they still make plenty of money off "reporting" on Lohan. They make their "money" either way. "The Press" has not been the press for a long time. They were given the freedom they have to ensure there would be a watchdog over the government. They have not been a watch dog for a long time now. And no, Fox certainly isn't. News today is about entertainment, ratings, and money. I suppose money has had it's influence for a very long time. But the way I see it, it has absolutely corrupted our entire country. Government, press, and "The People". |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() What happened to all the pro-Obama types? None of them are fighting-back. Kinda like the media... Just hoping the story goes away. NYT had a tweet yesterday that said "we may never know who changed the memo." Would they have said "We may never know who ordered people to sneak-around in the Watergate Hotel"? No way! They'd have gotten to the bottom of it. |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() powerman - 2013-05-09 2:05 PM "The Press" has not been the press for a long time. They were given the freedom they have to ensure there would be a watchdog over the government. They have not been a watch dog for a long time now. And no, Fox certainly isn't. News today is about entertainment, ratings, and money. I suppose money has had it's influence for a very long time. But the way I see it, it has absolutely corrupted our entire country. Government, press, and "The People". I completely agree. At least with the main stream media. some of the smaller media sources might be more honest in their Journalism but then its hard to know if you can trust them. |
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() scoobysdad - 2013-05-09 1:44 PM powerman - 2013-05-09 1:23 PM I'll also add that the major three networks are also in CYA-mode over this. After all, they bought the Administration's youtube video cover story hook, line and sinker without bothering to do their own fact-checking. Even after the fact, they never bothered to investigate what really happened on the ground where it happened-- or they knew the real story and decided not to report it. Now, they have the real story being told by the people who were there and they still aren't reporting it or, as in the the case of the AP story I read yesterday, they are grossly misrepresenting the story. BTW, the headline from that story: "Former US Official describes Libya attack"... how does that in any way describe what yesterday's hearings were really about? The hearings were about high-ranking witnesses to the actual events presenting a story completely at odds with the one presented to the American public. Worse, the story didn't even appear on the "front page" of the online version of my major city newspaper this morning. Here is the only problem with that... the "truth" is optional... and they still make plenty of money off "reporting" on Lohan. They make their "money" either way. I was running on the treadmill at the gym this morning and FoxNews, CBS, and ABC were on the three TV's in front of me. I don't know the exact ratio's but Fox had the Benghazi testimony with a reporter on site being interviewed and spent most of the hour covering it. CBS and ABC were pretty much wall to wall Ariel Castro and Jodi Arias with just a little blurb about Benghazi. I couldn't tell for sure because I was listening to music, but I don't even think CBS and ABC had a reporter on site at the hearings. I just checked now and abcnews, cbsnews, nbcnews all have Castro as their main story. Foxnews is the only one with Benghazi leading. "ultimately journalism has changed … partisanship is very much a part of journalism now." Les Moonves (head of CBS News) |
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() This will make for an interesting episode of the NewsRoom this year on HBO! |
![]() ![]() |
Master ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() No, not watching. It was a tragedy and has been investigated, much like the 7 or so Embasssy attacks that occurred under G.W. Bush's watch. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Expert ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() tuwood - 2013-05-09 1:44 PM scoobysdad - 2013-05-09 1:44 PM powerman - 2013-05-09 1:23 PM I'll also add that the major three networks are also in CYA-mode over this. After all, they bought the Administration's youtube video cover story hook, line and sinker without bothering to do their own fact-checking. Even after the fact, they never bothered to investigate what really happened on the ground where it happened-- or they knew the real story and decided not to report it. Now, they have the real story being told by the people who were there and they still aren't reporting it or, as in the the case of the AP story I read yesterday, they are grossly misrepresenting the story. BTW, the headline from that story: "Former US Official describes Libya attack"... how does that in any way describe what yesterday's hearings were really about? The hearings were about high-ranking witnesses to the actual events presenting a story completely at odds with the one presented to the American public. Worse, the story didn't even appear on the "front page" of the online version of my major city newspaper this morning. Here is the only problem with that... the "truth" is optional... and they still make plenty of money off "reporting" on Lohan. They make their "money" either way. I was running on the treadmill at the gym this morning and FoxNews, CBS, and ABC were on the three TV's in front of me. I don't know the exact ratio's but Fox had the Benghazi testimony with a reporter on site being interviewed and spent most of the hour covering it. CBS and ABC were pretty much wall to wall Ariel Castro and Jodi Arias with just a little blurb about Benghazi. I couldn't tell for sure because I was listening to music, but I don't even think CBS and ABC had a reporter on site at the hearings. I just checked now and abcnews, cbsnews, nbcnews all have Castro as their main story. Foxnews is the only one with Benghazi leading. "ultimately journalism has changed … partisanship is very much a part of journalism now." Les Moonves (head of CBS News) So because FOX News is going "All IN" on the coverage-that makes them the only 'credible' news outlet. Give It A Rest! As someone said earlier, FOX think they smell blood in the water; so OF COURSE they're going All IN. This is about midterms and 2016 elections. And that's all it's about. This thread, like every other social/political-minded COJ thread is heading exactly where ALL social/political threads on COJ go. The exact same people commenting, (myself absolutely included) spewing the exact same "Democrat=Bad/Good. Republican=Bad/Good". And if you share a differing opinion than the vocal majority, you'll be 'quoted' and BOLD faced and, God forbid, sarc fonted. |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() tuwood - 2013-05-09 2:44 PM scoobysdad - 2013-05-09 1:44 PM powerman - 2013-05-09 1:23 PM I'll also add that the major three networks are also in CYA-mode over this. After all, they bought the Administration's youtube video cover story hook, line and sinker without bothering to do their own fact-checking. Even after the fact, they never bothered to investigate what really happened on the ground where it happened-- or they knew the real story and decided not to report it. Now, they have the real story being told by the people who were there and they still aren't reporting it or, as in the the case of the AP story I read yesterday, they are grossly misrepresenting the story. BTW, the headline from that story: "Former US Official describes Libya attack"... how does that in any way describe what yesterday's hearings were really about? The hearings were about high-ranking witnesses to the actual events presenting a story completely at odds with the one presented to the American public. Worse, the story didn't even appear on the "front page" of the online version of my major city newspaper this morning. Here is the only problem with that... the "truth" is optional... and they still make plenty of money off "reporting" on Lohan. They make their "money" either way. I was running on the treadmill at the gym this morning and FoxNews, CBS, and ABC were on the three TV's in front of me. I don't know the exact ratio's but Fox had the Benghazi testimony with a reporter on site being interviewed and spent most of the hour covering it. CBS and ABC were pretty much wall to wall Ariel Castro and Jodi Arias with just a little blurb about Benghazi. I couldn't tell for sure because I was listening to music, but I don't even think CBS and ABC had a reporter on site at the hearings. I just checked now and abcnews, cbsnews, nbcnews all have Castro as their main story. Foxnews is the only one with Benghazi leading. "ultimately journalism has changed … partisanship is very much a part of journalism now." Les Moonves (head of CBS News) Just more information. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() ejshowers - 2013-05-09 3:07 PM No, not watching. It was a tragedy and has been investigated, much like the 7 or so Embasssy attacks that occurred under G.W. Bush's watch. You mean the ones in which no Americans died? those? There were 11. Many Third-country national security guards and civilians died in those, but Americans weren't killed. You can't just say "nothing to see here, move along." |
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() crowny2 - 2013-05-09 3:15 PM tuwood - 2013-05-09 2:44 PM scoobysdad - 2013-05-09 1:44 PM powerman - 2013-05-09 1:23 PM I'll also add that the major three networks are also in CYA-mode over this. After all, they bought the Administration's youtube video cover story hook, line and sinker without bothering to do their own fact-checking. Even after the fact, they never bothered to investigate what really happened on the ground where it happened-- or they knew the real story and decided not to report it. Now, they have the real story being told by the people who were there and they still aren't reporting it or, as in the the case of the AP story I read yesterday, they are grossly misrepresenting the story. BTW, the headline from that story: "Former US Official describes Libya attack"... how does that in any way describe what yesterday's hearings were really about? The hearings were about high-ranking witnesses to the actual events presenting a story completely at odds with the one presented to the American public. Worse, the story didn't even appear on the "front page" of the online version of my major city newspaper this morning. Here is the only problem with that... the "truth" is optional... and they still make plenty of money off "reporting" on Lohan. They make their "money" either way. I was running on the treadmill at the gym this morning and FoxNews, CBS, and ABC were on the three TV's in front of me. I don't know the exact ratio's but Fox had the Benghazi testimony with a reporter on site being interviewed and spent most of the hour covering it. CBS and ABC were pretty much wall to wall Ariel Castro and Jodi Arias with just a little blurb about Benghazi. I couldn't tell for sure because I was listening to music, but I don't even think CBS and ABC had a reporter on site at the hearings. I just checked now and abcnews, cbsnews, nbcnews all have Castro as their main story. Foxnews is the only one with Benghazi leading. "ultimately journalism has changed … partisanship is very much a part of journalism now." Les Moonves (head of CBS News) Just more information. Can't see it because you have to take the Pro Choice Pledge just to read the article. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() jeffnboise - 2013-05-09 3:12 PM tuwood - 2013-05-09 1:44 PM scoobysdad - 2013-05-09 1:44 PM powerman - 2013-05-09 1:23 PM I'll also add that the major three networks are also in CYA-mode over this. After all, they bought the Administration's youtube video cover story hook, line and sinker without bothering to do their own fact-checking. Even after the fact, they never bothered to investigate what really happened on the ground where it happened-- or they knew the real story and decided not to report it. Now, they have the real story being told by the people who were there and they still aren't reporting it or, as in the the case of the AP story I read yesterday, they are grossly misrepresenting the story. BTW, the headline from that story: "Former US Official describes Libya attack"... how does that in any way describe what yesterday's hearings were really about? The hearings were about high-ranking witnesses to the actual events presenting a story completely at odds with the one presented to the American public. Worse, the story didn't even appear on the "front page" of the online version of my major city newspaper this morning. Here is the only problem with that... the "truth" is optional... and they still make plenty of money off "reporting" on Lohan. They make their "money" either way. I was running on the treadmill at the gym this morning and FoxNews, CBS, and ABC were on the three TV's in front of me. I don't know the exact ratio's but Fox had the Benghazi testimony with a reporter on site being interviewed and spent most of the hour covering it. CBS and ABC were pretty much wall to wall Ariel Castro and Jodi Arias with just a little blurb about Benghazi. I couldn't tell for sure because I was listening to music, but I don't even think CBS and ABC had a reporter on site at the hearings. I just checked now and abcnews, cbsnews, nbcnews all have Castro as their main story. Foxnews is the only one with Benghazi leading. "ultimately journalism has changed … partisanship is very much a part of journalism now." Les Moonves (head of CBS News) So because FOX News is going "All IN" on the coverage-that makes them the only 'credible' news outlet. Give It A Rest! As someone said earlier, FOX think they smell blood in the water; so OF COURSE they're going All IN. This is about midterms and 2016 elections. And that's all it's about. This thread, like every other social/political-minded COJ thread is heading exactly where ALL social/political threads on COJ go. The exact same people commenting, (myself absolutely included) spewing the exact same "Democrat=Bad/Good. Republican=Bad/Good". And if you share a differing opinion than the vocal majority, you'll be 'quoted' and BOLD faced and, God forbid, sarc fonted. I'll ask you this. Americans die, are sodomized, bodies are mutilated. = Good or Bad? Then the story was modified in-order so a person can come across more popular. Again, good or bad? This is all bad man. All bad. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() GomesBolt - 2013-05-09 2:17 PM What happened to all the pro-Obama types? None of them are fighting-back. Kinda like the media... Just hoping the story goes away. NYT had a tweet yesterday that said "we may never know who changed the memo." Would they have said "We may never know who ordered people to sneak-around in the Watergate Hotel"? No way! They'd have gotten to the bottom of it. Sorry, I didn't know we were supposed to be "fighting back"? In fact, I didn't know this was even a fight? Here's what I think: I think they were guilty of underestimating the terrorist's intent against the Benghazi consulate and therefore for being unprepared to ward off the assault. I think that if they had genuinely believed that there was a military response that could have saved lives without putting additional lives in danger needlessly, they would have used it, but that they felt that no such asset existed or that it was needed more urgently elsewhere. As for the story that came out-- I dunno. Was it the best information they had at the time? Did they believe that it was inappropriate to characterize it as a terrorist attack at the time, based on the information they had? Maybe. Other than that, I don't really know. I know one thing: I'm going to wait until all the evidence is out there and then make a decision based on all of it, and not just fall in line behind what Hannity and FoxNews and a bunch of GOP politicians tell me to believe any more than I believe the WH or MSNBC version. Others would be well-advised to do the same. It's a tragedy, one that's not going to be undone by turning this into a witch-hunt. I don't believe that Clinton and Obama deliberately deceived the American people for political gain. But, what the heck, I believed that Lance Armstrong was clean and that Iraq had WMD's, so what do I know? One thing is for sure-- this panel is no more "independant" than the last one. I think the truth will be somewhere in the middle. |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() GomesBolt - 2013-05-09 3:21 PM crowny2 - 2013-05-09 3:15 PM tuwood - 2013-05-09 2:44 PM scoobysdad - 2013-05-09 1:44 PM powerman - 2013-05-09 1:23 PM I'll also add that the major three networks are also in CYA-mode over this. After all, they bought the Administration's youtube video cover story hook, line and sinker without bothering to do their own fact-checking. Even after the fact, they never bothered to investigate what really happened on the ground where it happened-- or they knew the real story and decided not to report it. Now, they have the real story being told by the people who were there and they still aren't reporting it or, as in the the case of the AP story I read yesterday, they are grossly misrepresenting the story. BTW, the headline from that story: "Former US Official describes Libya attack"... how does that in any way describe what yesterday's hearings were really about? The hearings were about high-ranking witnesses to the actual events presenting a story completely at odds with the one presented to the American public. Worse, the story didn't even appear on the "front page" of the online version of my major city newspaper this morning. Here is the only problem with that... the "truth" is optional... and they still make plenty of money off "reporting" on Lohan. They make their "money" either way. I was running on the treadmill at the gym this morning and FoxNews, CBS, and ABC were on the three TV's in front of me. I don't know the exact ratio's but Fox had the Benghazi testimony with a reporter on site being interviewed and spent most of the hour covering it. CBS and ABC were pretty much wall to wall Ariel Castro and Jodi Arias with just a little blurb about Benghazi. I couldn't tell for sure because I was listening to music, but I don't even think CBS and ABC had a reporter on site at the hearings. I just checked now and abcnews, cbsnews, nbcnews all have Castro as their main story. Foxnews is the only one with Benghazi leading. "ultimately journalism has changed … partisanship is very much a part of journalism now." Les Moonves (head of CBS News) Just more information. Can't see it because you have to take the Pro Choice Pledge just to read the article. Huh. Doesn't do that to me. Basically, Fox kept cutting away from the coverage every time a Democrat began to speak. So much so that the Fox host recognized it and claimed they would address it on the next time clip. They then basically only showed another 10 minutes of live stuff and the rest of it was talking heads. |
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() jeffnboise - 2013-05-09 3:12 PM tuwood - 2013-05-09 1:44 PM scoobysdad - 2013-05-09 1:44 PM powerman - 2013-05-09 1:23 PM I'll also add that the major three networks are also in CYA-mode over this. After all, they bought the Administration's youtube video cover story hook, line and sinker without bothering to do their own fact-checking. Even after the fact, they never bothered to investigate what really happened on the ground where it happened-- or they knew the real story and decided not to report it. Now, they have the real story being told by the people who were there and they still aren't reporting it or, as in the the case of the AP story I read yesterday, they are grossly misrepresenting the story. BTW, the headline from that story: "Former US Official describes Libya attack"... how does that in any way describe what yesterday's hearings were really about? The hearings were about high-ranking witnesses to the actual events presenting a story completely at odds with the one presented to the American public. Worse, the story didn't even appear on the "front page" of the online version of my major city newspaper this morning. Here is the only problem with that... the "truth" is optional... and they still make plenty of money off "reporting" on Lohan. They make their "money" either way. I was running on the treadmill at the gym this morning and FoxNews, CBS, and ABC were on the three TV's in front of me. I don't know the exact ratio's but Fox had the Benghazi testimony with a reporter on site being interviewed and spent most of the hour covering it. CBS and ABC were pretty much wall to wall Ariel Castro and Jodi Arias with just a little blurb about Benghazi. I couldn't tell for sure because I was listening to music, but I don't even think CBS and ABC had a reporter on site at the hearings. I just checked now and abcnews, cbsnews, nbcnews all have Castro as their main story. Foxnews is the only one with Benghazi leading. "ultimately journalism has changed … partisanship is very much a part of journalism now." Les Moonves (head of CBS News) So because FOX News is going "All IN" on the coverage-that makes them the only 'credible' news outlet. Give It A Rest! As someone said earlier, FOX think they smell blood in the water; so OF COURSE they're going All IN. This is about midterms and 2016 elections. And that's all it's about. This thread, like every other social/political-minded COJ thread is heading exactly where ALL social/political threads on COJ go. The exact same people commenting, (myself absolutely included) spewing the exact same "Democrat=Bad/Good. Republican=Bad/Good". And if you share a differing opinion than the vocal majority, you'll be 'quoted' and BOLD faced and, God forbid, sarc fonted. So basically, no matter what happens in the Obama administration you're good with it and anyone who questions it is doing it for partisan purposes? The truth is irrelevant? |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() jmk-brooklyn - 2013-05-09 3:27 PM GomesBolt - 2013-05-09 2:17 PM What happened to all the pro-Obama types? None of them are fighting-back. Kinda like the media... Just hoping the story goes away. NYT had a tweet yesterday that said "we may never know who changed the memo." Would they have said "We may never know who ordered people to sneak-around in the Watergate Hotel"? No way! They'd have gotten to the bottom of it. Other than that, I don't really know. I know one thing: I'm going to wait until all the evidence is out there and then make a decision based on all of it, and not just fall in line behind what Hannity and FoxNews and a bunch of GOP politicians tell me to believe any more than I believe the WH or MSNBC version. Others would be well-advised to do the same. Or you can just watch the unedited testimony of the people who were on the ground when and where the events occurred and who communicated such to the Secretary of State in person. Then you can compare that account with the one the Administration attempted to sell to the American people-- and with the complicity of the "press", did so effectively. |
|