Forum Thread

Media coverup in the Benghazi incident

dealgate 6,351 1,085 May 9, 2013 at 07:54 AM
This article pretty much sums up what most people already know: the media covers for this administration. The news gets out anyway but it is really bad when you have legitimate reporters that are asking out of their contracts due to stories not friendly to "team obama" being censored.

I don't think you can rationally come to any other conclusion.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/20...eam-obama/

In the real world, when you cover up four murders after the fact, you likely go to jail. In government, you retire with dignity and run for president with full media support.

Up until yesterday, that was the Benghazi scenario following the death of four Americans including our ambassador to Libya.

The Obama administration has lied, stonewalled, bullied, and intimidated – the true marks of an open and transparent administration. And, with a few notable exceptions, the American media haven’t just let them get away it. Heck, they’ve helped.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/20...z2So7gHtYX

2,614 Comments

1 2 3 4 5

Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.

Joined Apr 2005
L7: Weenie
21,140 Posts
454 Reputation
#16
http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-bl....html?vp=1

Quote :
When it became clear last fall that the CIA's now discredited Benghazi talking points were flawed, the White House said repeatedly the documents were put together almost entirely by the intelligence community, but White House documents reviewed by Congress suggest a different story.

ABC News has obtained 12 different versions of the talking points that show they were extensively edited as they evolved from the drafts first written entirely by the CIA to the final version distributed to Congress and to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice before she appeared on five talk shows the Sunday after that attack.

White House emails reviewed by ABC News suggest the edits were made with extensive input from the State Department. The edits included requests from the State Department that references to the Al Qaeda-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia be deleted as well references to CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack.

That would appear to directly contradict what White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said about the talking points in November.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
#17
Quote from empiretc View Post :
way to skip over the question asked........

This is a question? "way to try and bring gwb into this......"
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Never argue with idiots. First they bring you down to their level, then they beat you with experience.

"The Podium should be deleted and the part of the server it's on should be bashed with a hammer."
-loop610bob
Joined May 2005
L10: Grand Master
7,462 Posts
206 Reputation
#18
Quote from politicaljunkie View Post :
This is a question? "way to try and bring gwb into this......"

???

how many of those hearing had survivors of the bengahzi attack testifying?
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
If the lunch meat called spam became the catchword for a depersonalized email message, then social networking should be known as soylent green!
#19
Quote from Hawk2007 View Post :
... and less important than breaking into a hotel and stealing political documents.

Importance.

1. Benghazai
2. Watergate
3. Monica

Keep in mind... Watergate did not just happen and then one or two weeks later, President Nixon was resigning.
See, this is what you guys are hoping for. It so transparent.

Now, keep in mind--the event of Benghazi is important--the death of Americans. But Obama doesn't look like he's the one responsible for the death of the Americans. At least not responsible in the sense that he commited some crime or serious malfeasance. The issues around the witch-hunt doesn't look nearly as important: did they rely on information later found to be incorrect when discussing the attack or did they know it was a terrorist attach right off the bat and lie to us? Big whoop. There doesn't look like much solid evidence that they did lie. And even if they didn, that isn't like Watergate, which was political espionage through committing felony of breaking and entering--and then a major cover-up.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Joined Aug 2003
L10: Grand Master
10,368 Posts
265 Reputation
#20
Quote from politicaljunkie View Post :
I don't recall a hyper-partisan witch-hunt being assembled before the dust settled after each attack, so there was no reason to.
the difference is that in this case the 4 men in question requested more protection and these deaths may have been prevented by beefing up security or removing them from harms way. the partisanship against bush was over the top for many issues so lets not pretend that it did not occur. in this case, Obama and his team deserve what they are getting here. if your going to lie and you get caught.... don't be a crybaby about it. they are getting what they deserve.


Quote :
Ummm... He is a dirt bag politician. THEY ALL ARE.
I couldn't tell from the way libs/media treat Obama. I think most dem voters would disagree with you here.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
guess what, I don't reply to you because you are on ignore!
#21
Quote from empiretc View Post :
???

how many of those hearing had survivors of the bengahzi attack testifying?
I don't know. But, assuming none (which i think may be the case), what are you getting at here?

Look, you can have your hearings. Keep it up. Try to find something. But it seems that every single time a hearing occurs, nothing comes out of it. Nothing that does anything other fuel your baseless speculation.

Just because you can't find something doesn't mean there was a cover-up. Just because every single diplomat or person involved didn't have their own personal questions answered doesn't mean there was a cover-up. Hell, if something went down at your place of employment that had national/world attention---and you went around asking questions, your boss will probably tell you to STFU and stay out of it.

Look, if there is something wrong that actually occurred--i hope they find it. I don't want our government engaging in this kind of activity. But i just don't see anything here. There's lots of talk by the republicans and nothing by way of evidence. That sounds politcial to me. Especially when you take into account who are the targets: Clinton and Obama.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
#22
Quote from SigX View Post :
the difference is that in this case the 4 men in question requested more protection and these deaths may have been prevented by beefing up security or removing them from harms way. the partisanship against bush was over the top for many issues so lets not pretend that it did not occur. in this case, Obama and his team deserve what they are getting here. if your going to lie and you get caught.... don't be a crybaby about it. they are getting what they deserve.
I bet you could find hundreds of other people across the world who have asked for more protection. Hundreds. I wouldn't be suprised if it were thousands. This is a case of hindsight being 20/20.

And i'm not pretending Bush didn't get hit with partisanship. But the republicans trying to pound their chest over this issue while being silent on the numerous other attacks under GWB just shows that their outrage is both selective and partisan.

You don't know they lied--you are assuming that. Find the proof and then you'll actually have something to go on here.


Quote :
I couldn't tell from the way libs/media treat Obama. I think most dem voters would disagree with you here.
Ahh, more crying about the media. Yeah, ZERO evidence after 9+ hearings and you expect the media to crucify Obama. Right.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0

Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.

Joined Dec 2005
L10: Grand Master
6,351 Posts
1,085 Reputation
Original Poster
#23
Don't forget; Al Copone was taken down on income tax evasion. Sometime the most vile and evil among us need to be removed by less traditional methods.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
E finita la cuccagna

Liberals want you to think like them, Conservatives just want you to think!
Joined Aug 2003
L10: Grand Master
10,368 Posts
265 Reputation
#24
Quote from politicaljunkie View Post :
I bet you could find hundreds of other people across the world who have asked for more protection. Hundreds. I wouldn't be suprised if it were thousands. This is a case of hindsight being 20/20.

And i'm not pretending Bush didn't get hit with partisanship. But the republicans trying to pound their chest over this issue while being silent on the numerous other attacks under GWB just shows that their outrage is both selective and partisan.

You don't know they lied--you are assuming that. Find the proof and then you'll actually have something to go on here.
can you give me some comparable examples? honestly, Bush was constantly under attack from the media, at least that is what I remember.... people calling for his arrest, war crimes, etc. etc. I don't recall Bush getting a pass for anything.

Quote :
Ahh, more crying about the media. Yeah, ZERO evidence after 9+ hearings and you expect the media to crucify Obama. Right.
false. I don't expect them to crucify Obama, not in the least.... I expect them to stop acting like he never lies and report this in an unbiased way.... you know, journalism. unfortunately, they cant seem to stop taking his side.... they should not be taking anyone's side. that the point.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Joined May 2005
L10: Grand Master
7,462 Posts
206 Reputation
#25
Quote from politicaljunkie View Post :
Yeah, ZERO evidence after 9+ hearings and you expect the media to crucify Obama. Right.

you keep bringing that up. SUre.. 9+ hearings with not a single person who was in Benghazi testifying. that is a pretty poor foundation for an argument.

we are now getting testimony from witnesses, and they are showing there were false reports even though the truth was know. why hasn't Rice identified who gave her her marching orders for the Sunday talk shows? that should be pretty easy to answer.

Give it up on the political witch-hunt BS. it does not matter. There were major fark ups, people died, and lies were told.

you keep saying this right......

Quote from politicaljunkie View Post :
Look, if there is something wrong that actually occurred--i hope they find it. I don't want our government engaging in this kind of activity.
let go of the political bias and look at the facts that are coming out. why did so much editing need to be done.

credit to jk w/ ABC (amazingly): http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/polit...eferences/



Quote from SigX View Post :
I don't expect them to crucify Obama, not in the least.... I expect them to stop acting like he never lies and report this in an unbiased way.... you know, journalism. unfortunately, they cant seem to stop taking his side.... they should not be taking anyone's side. that the point.
agreed
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Last edited by empiretc May 10, 2013 at 08:00 AM
Joined Jun 2005
All downhill from here...
9,450 Posts
386 Reputation
#26
Quote from SigX View Post :
can you give me some comparable examples? honestly, Bush was constantly under attack from the media, at least that is what I remember.... people calling for his arrest, war crimes, etc. etc. I don't recall Bush getting a pass for anything.

:
false. I don't expect them to crucify Obama, not in the least.... I expect them to stop acting like he never lies and report this in an unbiased way.... you know, journalism. unfortunately, they cant seem to stop taking his side.... they should not be taking anyone's side. that the point.
What would be an example of taking his side or acting like he never lies? I have no idea what this means.

Hasn't the media covered all of this political theater? Reported all the best grandstanding? Published all the best innuendo? Not sure what more people want.

This has become an NM156 scenario, in which lack of evidence for a hypothesis is simply reintroduced as evidence of a cover up.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
bulb TIP: To avoid the stigma of literacy, listen to audio books.
Joined May 2008
Temporarily Banned
13,395 Posts
180 Reputation
#27
But we're supposed to believe there's no cover up.
Nothing to see here...
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
#28
Quote from SigX View Post :
can you give me some comparable examples? honestly, Bush was constantly under attack from the media, at least that is what I remember.... people calling for his arrest, war crimes, etc. etc. I don't recall Bush getting a pass for anything.
I'm talking about the 12 embassy attacks (50 deaths) under Bush--and the 3 hearings that resulted. I don't recall the republicans going ape-shit over those attacks.

Quote :
false. I don't expect them to crucify Obama, not in the least.... I expect them to stop acting like he never lies and report this in an unbiased way.... you know, journalism. unfortunately, they cant seem to stop taking his side.... they should not be taking anyone's side. that the point.
Well, at this point, after 9 hearings and zero evidence despite the clammering of the republicans, reporting that this smacks of partsianship isn't a stretch. Continuing to say there is something to this investigation would seem like they're taking the side of the republicans. And honestly, i've seen the media at various times take both sides--depending on the correspondent/journalist. Just because some in the media isn't buying your bullshit doesn't mean they're doing anything wrong.

Quote from OhNoItsDEVO View Post :
But we're supposed to believe there's no cover up.
Nothing to see here...
What about that says there was a cover-up?
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Last edited by politicaljunkie May 10, 2013 at 08:08 AM
Joined May 2008
Temporarily Banned
13,395 Posts
180 Reputation
#29
Quote from politicaljunkie View Post :
See, this is what you guys are hoping for. It so transparent.

Now, keep in mind--the event of Benghazi is important--the death of Americans. But Obama doesn't look like he's the one responsible for the death of the Americans. At least not responsible in the sense that he commited some crime or serious malfeasance. The issues around the witch-hunt doesn't look nearly as important: did they rely on information later found to be incorrect when discussing the attack or did they know it was a terrorist attach right off the bat and lie to us? Big whoop. There doesn't look like much solid evidence that they did lie. And even if they didn, that isn't like Watergate, which was political espionage through committing felony of breaking and entering--and then a major cover-up.
There isn't much evidence that they lied? Are you serious?
There's plenty of evidence that they did just that.
That they lied to us for political reasons. But no big deal right?

What do you have to say about the info Paperboy presented at the top of the page?
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0

Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.

Joined May 2005
L10: Grand Master
7,462 Posts
206 Reputation
#30
Quote from politicaljunkie View Post :
Well, at this point, after 9 hearings and zero evidence despite the clammering of the republicans, reporting that this smacks of partsianship isn't a stretch.....
. ......
What about that says there was a cover-up?
Quote from empiretc View Post :
you keep bringing that up. SUre.. 9+ hearings with not a single person who was in Benghazi testifying. that is a pretty poor foundation for an argument.

http://abcnews.go.com/images/Poli...meline.pdf

they couldn't contradict: "Al Qaeda Has Been Decimated" -bho
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Last edited by empiretc May 10, 2013 at 08:26 AM
Page 2 of 175
1 2 3 4 5
Join the Conversation
Add a Comment
 
Copyright 1999 - 2016. Slickdeals, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Copyright / Infringement Policy  •  Privacy Policy  •  Terms of Service  •  Acceptable Use Policy (Rules)  •  Interest-Based Ads
Link Copied to Clipboard