login
Benghazi Hearings (Page 4)
-
No new posts
|
 2013-05-09 8:46 PM in reply to: #4735632 |
Master  1970     Somewhere on the Tennessee River |  Subject: RE: Benghazi HearingsGomesBolt - 2013-05-09 5:11 PM jeffnboise - 2013-05-09 4:50 PM GomesBolt - 2013-05-09 3:25 PM KateTri1 - 2013-05-09 4:11 PM GomesBolt - 2013-05-09 5:00 PM I've said a few times in the past, but it bears repeating here. Hillary will not win the nomination in 2016 regardless of what happens because she's too darn old. She'll be the same age as McCain when he was running and she made nasty comments about him being "too old" at the time. I don't think this has a thing to do with Hillary 2016. For some this is political, for me it's about learning that we don't hang our people out to dry like this. I seriously think Benghazi and the attention being given to it now is what's keeping the administration from putting people in the Syria mess. Reagan was 69 when elected. it's not about age. It's about charisma. McCain had none. Hillary is a favorite. But I do agree. I don't think she can win. I think it's an attempt to smudge the dems. I really think we are not in the Syria mess because it does not benefit us to be there. And we have an administration that doesn't have the "go in with guns blazing" attitude. The only charisma she's ever had was borrowed from Bill, so she's really not going to do well... But she was nasty with McCain, 72, lots of charisma (???), when she is gonna be 69 with no charisma. Pfft, gag, cough!!....You owe me a new keyboard cuz I just spit water all over this one. We ARE talking about John "Arm ALL the Rebels, everywhere, all the time" McCain, right? THAT, sir. Is a completely different thread. Now how about a Mark Sanford thread. THAT'S the kind of charisma and high moral character we need representing the people. McCain can speak without a written speech in front of him, Hillary cannot. I do not agree with his politics, but he can speak to a group and isn't afraid to confront an angry mob. I've seen it in person and I've met him in person. Yep, charisma. I have never met Hillary, but I notice you weren't defending her so I take that to mean you agree that she is lacking in charisma. I never brought-up Mark Sanford. You did. If you're trying to compare Mark Sanford to Bill Clinton. I say ok, I agree with you. They're both scum, but they both clearly have charisma. I find the tactic interesting that when someone disagrees with something a republican says, they bring-up some other issue in the GOP that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Why is that? For the record, Benghazi has nothing to do with the Charisma of our leaders. It had to do with the lack of Courage from our elected leaders. You most certainly can't claim McCain lacks courage if you have read his bio. Politics is immaterial to me, but anyone who can walk off the nose of an A4 as it is about to explode has my respect. |
| 2013-05-09 9:26 PM in reply to: #4735857 |
Pro 9391  Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Benghazi Hearings jeffnboise - 2013-05-09 8:39 PM It's the same fate that ALL the political threads face. I resisted the urge to play today, by the force was too strong. I won't make that mistake again. TAN here I come. Resistance is futile. See you in the next one. |
| 2013-05-09 9:34 PM in reply to: #4735867 |
Master 2802 Minnetonka, Minnesota Bronze member | Subject: RE: Benghazi Hearings MadMathemagician - 2013-05-09 8:46 PM GomesBolt - 2013-05-09 5:11 PM jeffnboise - 2013-05-09 4:50 PM GomesBolt - 2013-05-09 3:25 PM KateTri1 - 2013-05-09 4:11 PM GomesBolt - 2013-05-09 5:00 PM I've said a few times in the past, but it bears repeating here. Hillary will not win the nomination in 2016 regardless of what happens because she's too darn old. She'll be the same age as McCain when he was running and she made nasty comments about him being "too old" at the time. I don't think this has a thing to do with Hillary 2016. For some this is political, for me it's about learning that we don't hang our people out to dry like this. I seriously think Benghazi and the attention being given to it now is what's keeping the administration from putting people in the Syria mess. Reagan was 69 when elected. it's not about age. It's about charisma. McCain had none. Hillary is a favorite. But I do agree. I don't think she can win. I think it's an attempt to smudge the dems. I really think we are not in the Syria mess because it does not benefit us to be there. And we have an administration that doesn't have the "go in with guns blazing" attitude. The only charisma she's ever had was borrowed from Bill, so she's really not going to do well... But she was nasty with McCain, 72, lots of charisma (???), when she is gonna be 69 with no charisma. Pfft, gag, cough!!....You owe me a new keyboard cuz I just spit water all over this one. We ARE talking about John "Arm ALL the Rebels, everywhere, all the time" McCain, right? THAT, sir. Is a completely different thread. Now how about a Mark Sanford thread. THAT'S the kind of charisma and high moral character we need representing the people. McCain can speak without a written speech in front of him, Hillary cannot. I do not agree with his politics, but he can speak to a group and isn't afraid to confront an angry mob. I've seen it in person and I've met him in person. Yep, charisma. I have never met Hillary, but I notice you weren't defending her so I take that to mean you agree that she is lacking in charisma. I never brought-up Mark Sanford. You did. If you're trying to compare Mark Sanford to Bill Clinton. I say ok, I agree with you. They're both scum, but they both clearly have charisma. I find the tactic interesting that when someone disagrees with something a republican says, they bring-up some other issue in the GOP that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Why is that? For the record, Benghazi has nothing to do with the Charisma of our leaders. It had to do with the lack of Courage from our elected leaders. You most certainly can't claim McCain lacks courage if you have read his bio. Politics is immaterial to me, but anyone who can walk off the nose of an A4 as it is about to explode has my respect. Yeah, I had quite a bit of respect for him at one time, but lost it in the 2008 campaign when it appeared that he sold his soul to the dark side like many a politician. |
| 2013-05-09 9:35 PM in reply to: #4735918 |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: Benghazi Hearings ejshowers - 2013-05-09 8:34 PM Yeah, I had quite a bit of respect for him at one time, but lost it in the 2008 campaign when it appeared that he sold his soul to the dark side like many a politician. Same here. |
| 2013-05-09 10:03 PM in reply to: #4735918 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Benghazi Hearings ejshowers - 2013-05-09 9:34 PM MadMathemagician - 2013-05-09 8:46 PM GomesBolt - 2013-05-09 5:11 PM jeffnboise - 2013-05-09 4:50 PM GomesBolt - 2013-05-09 3:25 PM KateTri1 - 2013-05-09 4:11 PM GomesBolt - 2013-05-09 5:00 PM I've said a few times in the past, but it bears repeating here. Hillary will not win the nomination in 2016 regardless of what happens because she's too darn old. She'll be the same age as McCain when he was running and she made nasty comments about him being "too old" at the time. I don't think this has a thing to do with Hillary 2016. For some this is political, for me it's about learning that we don't hang our people out to dry like this. I seriously think Benghazi and the attention being given to it now is what's keeping the administration from putting people in the Syria mess. Reagan was 69 when elected. it's not about age. It's about charisma. McCain had none. Hillary is a favorite. But I do agree. I don't think she can win. I think it's an attempt to smudge the dems. I really think we are not in the Syria mess because it does not benefit us to be there. And we have an administration that doesn't have the "go in with guns blazing" attitude. The only charisma she's ever had was borrowed from Bill, so she's really not going to do well... But she was nasty with McCain, 72, lots of charisma (???), when she is gonna be 69 with no charisma. Pfft, gag, cough!!....You owe me a new keyboard cuz I just spit water all over this one. We ARE talking about John "Arm ALL the Rebels, everywhere, all the time" McCain, right? THAT, sir. Is a completely different thread. Now how about a Mark Sanford thread. THAT'S the kind of charisma and high moral character we need representing the people. McCain can speak without a written speech in front of him, Hillary cannot. I do not agree with his politics, but he can speak to a group and isn't afraid to confront an angry mob. I've seen it in person and I've met him in person. Yep, charisma. I have never met Hillary, but I notice you weren't defending her so I take that to mean you agree that she is lacking in charisma. I never brought-up Mark Sanford. You did. If you're trying to compare Mark Sanford to Bill Clinton. I say ok, I agree with you. They're both scum, but they both clearly have charisma. I find the tactic interesting that when someone disagrees with something a republican says, they bring-up some other issue in the GOP that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Why is that? For the record, Benghazi has nothing to do with the Charisma of our leaders. It had to do with the lack of Courage from our elected leaders. You most certainly can't claim McCain lacks courage if you have read his bio. Politics is immaterial to me, but anyone who can walk off the nose of an A4 as it is about to explode has my respect. Yeah, I had quite a bit of respect for him at one time, but lost it in the 2008 campaign when it appeared that he sold his soul to the dark side like many a politician. I'm in the same boat, I'm not sure of the exact moment but the shiny wore off during the campaign and has continued to dull since then for me. |
| 2013-05-09 11:01 PM in reply to: #4735567 |
Expert 1186 North Cackalacky | Subject: RE: Benghazi Hearings GomesBolt - 2013-05-09 5:00 PM I seriously think Benghazi and the attention being given to it now is what's keeping the administration from putting people in the Syria mess. I think Russia, China, Israel, Jordan, and Turkey all have way more to do with any decisions about Syria than Benghazi. |
| 2013-05-10 7:04 AM in reply to: #4736020 |
| Austin, Texas or Jupiter, Florida | Subject: RE: Benghazi Hearings ScudRunner - 2013-05-09 11:01 PM How do you figure. GomesBolt - 2013-05-09 5:00 PM I seriously think Benghazi and the attention being given to it now is what's keeping the administration from putting people in the Syria mess. I think Russia, China, Israel, Jordan, and Turkey all have way more to do with any decisions about Syria than Benghazi. Israel would love us getting into it. they've wanted to fight alongside the US for years because they know it'd cement our friendship. Jordan and Turkey are drowning in refugees (over 1 Million since this started). Russia and China didn't lend their support to Afghanistan and Iraq or to our Libya actions. The biggest factor in the US having no boots on the ground is that we did so "secretively" in Libya and the aftermath wasn't good. |
| 2013-05-10 8:36 AM in reply to: #4733519 |
| Austin, Texas or Jupiter, Florida | Subject: RE: Benghazi Hearings Interesting read about Patreus getting angry about the talking points but then saluting and following along. http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/benghazi-scandal-grows_722032.html. |
| 2013-05-10 9:02 AM in reply to: #4736285 |
Pro 4675 Wisconsin near the Twin Cities metro | Subject: RE: Benghazi Hearings GomesBolt - 2013-05-10 8:36 AM Interesting read about Patreus getting angry about the talking points but then saluting and following along. http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/benghazi-scandal-grows_722032.html. The White House is saying that revisions to the talking points were merely "stylistic changes". Ummmm....yeah.....to believe that would require (in the words that Hillary Clinton used when addressing Patraeus' testimony on Iraq in 2008) "a willing suspension of disbelief" Edited by Birkierunner 2013-05-10 9:06 AM |
| 2013-05-10 9:57 AM in reply to: #4733519 |
| Austin, Texas or Jupiter, Florida | Subject: RE: Benghazi Hearings http://www.scribd.com/doc/140592468/Benghazi-Talking-Points-Timeline
Here are the redlines of the talking points. Yep. Looks like someone knew exactly what they were doing. If Patreus was being told to walk the line, then it had to be someone he reported to. Who would that be??? |
| 2013-05-10 10:02 AM in reply to: #4736453 |
Master 2802 Minnetonka, Minnesota Bronze member | Subject: RE: Benghazi Hearings |
| 2013-05-10 10:14 AM in reply to: #4736453 |
Champion 6056 Menomonee Falls, WI | Subject: RE: Benghazi Hearings Finally, one of the major non-Fox News networks is paying attention. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/exclusive-benghazi-tal... As a bonus watch the segment following the one about the edits, featuring Hillary Clinton's testimony at the original hearings. Kind of puts a whole new light on her "heartfelt" words and the fawning media attention on her getting choked up about the four dead Americans to know now that she lied directly to the faces of the victims' family members, doesn't it? Remember, she was told directly by Greg Hicks at 2am the same night of the attacks that there was no protest outside the consulate due to any video, which was a "non-event in Libya". Yet she sold the story and attempted to prevent witnesses from providing their observations to a congressional investigation. She lied, she covered up. Of course, what difference, at this point, does it make, right? |
| 2013-05-10 10:17 AM in reply to: #4736453 |
Champion 7347 SRQ, FL | Subject: RE: Benghazi Hearings GomesBolt - 2013-05-10 10:57 AM http://www.scribd.com/doc/140592468/Benghazi-Talking-Points-Timeline
Here are the redlines of the talking points. Yep. Looks like someone knew exactly what they were doing. If Patreus was being told to walk the line, then it had to be someone he reported to. Who would that be??? Wow. If that's accurate then someone has some 'splaining to do Lucy... |
| 2013-05-10 10:19 AM in reply to: #4735918 |
Expert 3126 Boise, ID | Subject: RE: Benghazi Hearings ejshowers - 2013-05-09 8:34 PM MadMathemagician - 2013-05-09 8:46 PM GomesBolt - 2013-05-09 5:11 PM jeffnboise - 2013-05-09 4:50 PM GomesBolt - 2013-05-09 3:25 PM KateTri1 - 2013-05-09 4:11 PM GomesBolt - 2013-05-09 5:00 PM I've said a few times in the past, but it bears repeating here. Hillary will not win the nomination in 2016 regardless of what happens because she's too darn old. She'll be the same age as McCain when he was running and she made nasty comments about him being "too old" at the time. I don't think this has a thing to do with Hillary 2016. For some this is political, for me it's about learning that we don't hang our people out to dry like this. I seriously think Benghazi and the attention being given to it now is what's keeping the administration from putting people in the Syria mess. Reagan was 69 when elected. it's not about age. It's about charisma. McCain had none. Hillary is a favorite. But I do agree. I don't think she can win. I think it's an attempt to smudge the dems. I really think we are not in the Syria mess because it does not benefit us to be there. And we have an administration that doesn't have the "go in with guns blazing" attitude. The only charisma she's ever had was borrowed from Bill, so she's really not going to do well... But she was nasty with McCain, 72, lots of charisma (???), when she is gonna be 69 with no charisma. Pfft, gag, cough!!....You owe me a new keyboard cuz I just spit water all over this one. We ARE talking about John "Arm ALL the Rebels, everywhere, all the time" McCain, right? THAT, sir. Is a completely different thread. Now how about a Mark Sanford thread. THAT'S the kind of charisma and high moral character we need representing the people. McCain can speak without a written speech in front of him, Hillary cannot. I do not agree with his politics, but he can speak to a group and isn't afraid to confront an angry mob. I've seen it in person and I've met him in person. Yep, charisma. I have never met Hillary, but I notice you weren't defending her so I take that to mean you agree that she is lacking in charisma. I never brought-up Mark Sanford. You did. If you're trying to compare Mark Sanford to Bill Clinton. I say ok, I agree with you. They're both scum, but they both clearly have charisma. I find the tactic interesting that when someone disagrees with something a republican says, they bring-up some other issue in the GOP that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Why is that? For the record, Benghazi has nothing to do with the Charisma of our leaders. It had to do with the lack of Courage from our elected leaders. You most certainly can't claim McCain lacks courage if you have read his bio. Politics is immaterial to me, but anyone who can walk off the nose of an A4 as it is about to explode has my respect. Yeah, I had quite a bit of respect for him at one time, but lost it in the 2008 campaign when it appeared that he sold his soul to the dark side like many a politician. WOOT WOOT!!!! EJ and I can finally agree on something!!!! |
| 2013-05-10 10:48 AM in reply to: #4736478 |
| Austin, Texas or Jupiter, Florida | Subject: RE: Benghazi Hearings scoobysdad - 2013-05-10 10:14 AM Finally, one of the major non-Fox News networks is paying attention. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/exclusive-benghazi-tal... As a bonus watch the segment following the one about the edits, featuring Hillary Clinton's testimony at the original hearings. Kind of puts a whole new light on her "heartfelt" words and the fawning media attention on her getting choked up about the four dead Americans to know now that she lied directly to the faces of the victims' family members, doesn't it? Remember, she was told directly by Greg Hicks at 2am the same night of the attacks that there was no protest outside the consulate due to any video, which was a "non-event in Libya". Yet she sold the story and attempted to prevent witnesses from providing their observations to a congressional investigation. She lied, she covered up. Of course, what difference, at this point, does it make, right? I thought the same thing. ABC getting into the investagory journalism business is news in and of itself. |
| 2013-05-10 11:19 AM in reply to: #4733519 |
| Austin, Texas or Jupiter, Florida | Subject: RE: Benghazi Hearings Jay Carney "If I tell someone to make changes and they make changes, then I'm not the one making changes, they are." You can't make this stuff up... |
| 2013-05-10 11:34 AM in reply to: #4736138 |
| New user 900 , | Subject: RE: Benghazi Hearings GomesBolt - 2013-05-10 7:04 AM ScudRunner - 2013-05-09 11:01 PM How do you figure.GomesBolt - 2013-05-09 5:00 PM I seriously think Benghazi and the attention being given to it now is what's keeping the administration from putting people in the Syria mess. I think Russia, China, Israel, Jordan, and Turkey all have way more to do with any decisions about Syria than Benghazi. Israel would love us getting into it. they've wanted to fight alongside the US for years because they know it'd cement our friendship. Jordan and Turkey are drowning in refugees (over 1 Million since this started). Russia and China didn't lend their support to Afghanistan and Iraq or to our Libya actions. The biggest factor in the US having no boots on the ground is that we did so "secretively" in Libya and the aftermath wasn't good.
Actually Syria is a lose, lose situation. We either back a murder (dictator) who will try to hold on to power no matter what or we back the Muslim Brotherhood with al qaeda ties. We did the latter in Egypt and that really hasn't worked out all that well. I just pray that this administration is not so stupid as to get involved in Syria. |
| 2013-05-10 11:48 AM in reply to: #4736612 |
| Austin, Texas or Jupiter, Florida | Subject: RE: Benghazi Hearings NXS - 2013-05-10 11:34 AM GomesBolt - 2013-05-10 7:04 AM ScudRunner - 2013-05-09 11:01 PM How do you figure.GomesBolt - 2013-05-09 5:00 PM I seriously think Benghazi and the attention being given to it now is what's keeping the administration from putting people in the Syria mess. I think Russia, China, Israel, Jordan, and Turkey all have way more to do with any decisions about Syria than Benghazi. Israel would love us getting into it. they've wanted to fight alongside the US for years because they know it'd cement our friendship. Jordan and Turkey are drowning in refugees (over 1 Million since this started). Russia and China didn't lend their support to Afghanistan and Iraq or to our Libya actions. The biggest factor in the US having no boots on the ground is that we did so "secretively" in Libya and the aftermath wasn't good.
Actually Syria is a lose, lose situation. We either back a murder (dictator) who will try to hold on to power no matter what or we back the Muslim Brotherhood with al qaeda ties. We did the latter in Egypt and that really hasn't worked out all that well. I just pray that this administration is not so stupid as to get involved in Syria. Oh I agree, but so was Libya, but we got involved there (and yes, McCain and Graham were all in-favor of that like a bunch of buffoons). Egypt is another example. But in that case, the dictator was on our side. We welcomed the "Arab Spring" there and it's a mess for everyone. That's why I firmly believe that Benghazi and the attention there is why we're not sending boots on the ground in Syria. |
| 2013-05-10 11:53 AM in reply to: #4736478 |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: Benghazi Hearings scoobysdad - 2013-05-10 9:14 AM Finally, one of the major non-Fox News networks is paying attention. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/exclusive-benghazi-tal... As a bonus watch the segment following the one about the edits, featuring Hillary Clinton's testimony at the original hearings. Kind of puts a whole new light on her "heartfelt" words and the fawning media attention on her getting choked up about the four dead Americans to know now that she lied directly to the faces of the victims' family members, doesn't it? Remember, she was told directly by Greg Hicks at 2am the same night of the attacks that there was no protest outside the consulate due to any video, which was a "non-event in Libya". Yet she sold the story and attempted to prevent witnesses from providing their observations to a congressional investigation. She lied, she covered up. Of course, what difference, at this point, does it make, right? Ya, and same thing about the piece... "this could be used to beat up Hillary or beat up the state department"... How about instead of "beat up" how about "hold accountable". Or... here is an even more novel idea... instead of adding adjectives to spin your story, how about you just report the facts, and then let your audience decide. That would be awesome. |
| 2013-05-10 12:00 PM in reply to: #4736667 |
Expert 1951 | Subject: RE: Benghazi Hearings powerman - 2013-05-10 12:53 PM scoobysdad - 2013-05-10 9:14 AM Finally, one of the major non-Fox News networks is paying attention. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/exclusive-benghazi-tal... As a bonus watch the segment following the one about the edits, featuring Hillary Clinton's testimony at the original hearings. Kind of puts a whole new light on her "heartfelt" words and the fawning media attention on her getting choked up about the four dead Americans to know now that she lied directly to the faces of the victims' family members, doesn't it? Remember, she was told directly by Greg Hicks at 2am the same night of the attacks that there was no protest outside the consulate due to any video, which was a "non-event in Libya". Yet she sold the story and attempted to prevent witnesses from providing their observations to a congressional investigation. She lied, she covered up. Of course, what difference, at this point, does it make, right? Ya, and same thing about the piece... "this could be used to beat up Hillary or beat up the state department"... How about instead of "beat up" how about "hold accountable". Or... here is an even more novel idea... instead of adding adjectives to spin your story, how about you just report the facts, and then let your audience decide. That would be awesome. ... Edited by KateTri1 2013-05-10 12:03 PM |
| 2013-05-10 12:27 PM in reply to: #4733519 |
| Austin, Texas or Jupiter, Florida | Subject: RE: Benghazi Hearings And Libya is acting up again... Again, the pressure seems to have made sure the administration learned their lesson. When things act-up, get people ready. |
| 2013-05-10 12:52 PM in reply to: #4736676 |
| Austin, Texas or Jupiter, Florida | Subject: RE: Benghazi Hearings KateTri1 - 2013-05-10 12:00 PM powerman - 2013-05-10 12:53 PM scoobysdad - 2013-05-10 9:14 AM Finally, one of the major non-Fox News networks is paying attention. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/exclusive-benghazi-tal... As a bonus watch the segment following the one about the edits, featuring Hillary Clinton's testimony at the original hearings. Kind of puts a whole new light on her "heartfelt" words and the fawning media attention on her getting choked up about the four dead Americans to know now that she lied directly to the faces of the victims' family members, doesn't it? Remember, she was told directly by Greg Hicks at 2am the same night of the attacks that there was no protest outside the consulate due to any video, which was a "non-event in Libya". Yet she sold the story and attempted to prevent witnesses from providing their observations to a congressional investigation. She lied, she covered up. Of course, what difference, at this point, does it make, right? Ya, and same thing about the piece... "this could be used to beat up Hillary or beat up the state department"... How about instead of "beat up" how about "hold accountable". Or... here is an even more novel idea... instead of adding adjectives to spin your story, how about you just report the facts, and then let your audience decide. That would be awesome. ... Why'd you delete that? It was fine. But I agree completely with "..." as well |
| 2013-05-10 1:07 PM in reply to: #4736481 |
Master 2725 Washington, DC Metro | Subject: RE: Benghazi Hearings TriRSquared - 2013-05-10 11:17 AM GomesBolt - 2013-05-10 10:57 AM http://www.scribd.com/doc/140592468/Benghazi-Talking-Points-Timeline
Here are the redlines of the talking points. Yep. Looks like someone knew exactly what they were doing. If Patreus was being told to walk the line, then it had to be someone he reported to. Who would that be??? Wow. If that's accurate then someone has some 'splaining to do Lucy... Wow that document should be used to teach people how completely change a story from one extreme to another. Best I can explain is that it initially started out confirming the theory of evolution, and by the end, though a series of careful edits, it confirmed the theory of creationism... how the heck is that even possible. |
| 2013-05-10 1:39 PM in reply to: #4736780 |
Champion 6056 Menomonee Falls, WI | Subject: RE: Benghazi Hearings GomesBolt - 2013-05-10 12:52 PM KateTri1 - 2013-05-10 12:00 PM powerman - 2013-05-10 12:53 PM scoobysdad - 2013-05-10 9:14 AM Finally, one of the major non-Fox News networks is paying attention. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/exclusive-benghazi-tal... As a bonus watch the segment following the one about the edits, featuring Hillary Clinton's testimony at the original hearings. Kind of puts a whole new light on her "heartfelt" words and the fawning media attention on her getting choked up about the four dead Americans to know now that she lied directly to the faces of the victims' family members, doesn't it? Remember, she was told directly by Greg Hicks at 2am the same night of the attacks that there was no protest outside the consulate due to any video, which was a "non-event in Libya". Yet she sold the story and attempted to prevent witnesses from providing their observations to a congressional investigation. She lied, she covered up. Of course, what difference, at this point, does it make, right? Ya, and same thing about the piece... "this could be used to beat up Hillary or beat up the state department"... How about instead of "beat up" how about "hold accountable". Or... here is an even more novel idea... instead of adding adjectives to spin your story, how about you just report the facts, and then let your audience decide. That would be awesome. ... Why'd you delete that? It was fine. But I agree completely with "..." as well I saw the comment. "..." was a much smarter choice. |
| 2013-05-10 2:26 PM in reply to: #4733519 |
Master 2701 Salisbury, North Carolina | Subject: RE: Benghazi Hearings Strip away the politics and bias and go with the facts, admittedly not easy for any of us. Also, who's covering Benghazi currently just before 3pm edt today: ABCNews - top of the Latest Headlines is Benghazi headlines. http://abcnews.go.com/ NBCNews.com - nothing http://www.nbcnews.com/ CBSnews.com - only a reference to Hillary under Most Discussed. http://www.cbsnews.com/ Mediamatters.com - LOL.... hahaha. http://mediamatters.org/(If ALL you can talk about is the Right...then you might be WRONG) website is a joke. http://www.usatoday.com/- 1st headline about Benghazi, not bad. What does this say ? Maybe you could say still very little major news coverage. Maybe media bias is real and evident. Sad that people making their living divulging info. only divulge info. they want to cover. If you have websites to add, add 'em. Would honestly like to see what percentage of all networks are headlining Benghazi, or even just covering. I have always believed FOXNEWS is not nearly as far to the right as most liberal news networks are to the left. But I'm biased because I'm conservative. Edited by tri42 2013-05-10 2:31 PM |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK