Benghazi Hearings (Page 2)

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.

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

Obviously none of us have no idea of what happened behind the walls of the White House, but I will offer up the Presidents statement to the UN (I believe on 9/25)

"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

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.

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/032613-649433-are-30-benghazi-survivors-being-held-to-keep-them-quiet-.htm

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.

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?

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....

"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. 

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. 

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. 

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/08/fox-news-host-on-benghazi-were-getting-a-little-lopsided-by-favoring-republicans/ 

Just more information. 

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."

Can't see it because you have to take the Pro Choice Pledge just to read the article.

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.

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.

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?