Welcome to the updated Slickdeals redesign beta. Learn more and give us feedback. Or, return to the classic view.

Search in
Forum Thread

Media coverup in the Benghazi incident

dealgate 962 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

2,361 Comments

1 2 3 4 5

Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.

#31
Quote from empiretc View Post :
http://abcnews.go.com/images/Poli...meline.pdf

they couldn't contradict: "Al Qaeda Has Been Decimated" -bho
Hillary at the very least is farked. If they do a Special committee this might get up to Obama.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
All downhill from here...
378 Reputation
#32
Quote from OhNoItsDEVO View Post :
But we're supposed to believe there's no cover up.
Nothing to see here...
Dude, every single one of those versions leads with the same information Susan Rice provided, that the best explanation that it was related to the Cairo protests.

No, this offers no evidence, or even a suggestion of a cover up. It looks like any list under revision, but the story the jackals want to claim was a willful lie didn't change.

Seriously, based on these versions, does it seem to you that the Obama administration and state department injected the story about the best explanation being the Cairo connection as political cover? Or was that story consistent throughout the revisions?
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
#33
Quote from OhNoItsDEVO View Post :
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?

The article said they revised the documents. And we've known that for quite some time. All documents are revised. Before that information can be considered damning, we need to know why they were changed---there are a multitude of reasons why such a change could have been made. Some culpable, some not culpable. You are assuming they did it for political reasons. I honestly don't see how an attack due to a mob or an attack due to AQ in any way shows that the building was not adequately secured (which, IMO, is the biggest failing in this whole situation). Either explanation for the attack is bad, so i don't know how it would help BO politically one way or another. Not to mention, the truth would eventually come out as an investigation was performed--so i don't see the benefit.

But please feel free to hold another hearing to determine why.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
L10: Grand Master
944 Reputation
#34
Quote from ant0n View Post :
Hillary at the very least is farked. If they do a Special committee this might get up to Obama.
By all means, please keep reminding America that in Hillary Clinton's four years as Secretary of State, the biggest disaster that occurred was an attack in Libya which killed four people.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
#35
Quote from ant0n View Post :
Hillary at the very least is farked. If they do a Special committee this might get up to Obama.
How is Hillary farked? Serious question.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
L9: Master
962 Reputation
Original Poster
#36
Quote from Tony_Danza View Post :
How is Hillary farked? Serious question.
Hillary will be the fall-guy. No matter who else was involved they will pin it on her. She will take the fall. Sad. They are grooming Martin O'Malley (MD's Governor) to be a 2016 POTUS candidate. He is easily controlled as he has no mind of his own. Hillary is hard to control they don't really want her as POTUS.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
#37
Quote from dealgate View Post :
Hillary will be the fall-guy. No matter who else was involved they will pin it on her. She will take the fall. Sad. They are grooming Martin O'Malley (MD's Governor) to be a 2016 POTUS candidate. He is easily controlled as he has no mind of his own. Hillary is hard to control they don't really want her as POTUS.
LOL. Keep telling yourself that. But the concern for her political well being is appreciated.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0

Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.

L9: Master
962 Reputation
Original Poster
#38
Quote from politicaljunkie View Post :
LOL. Keep telling yourself that. But the concern for her political well being is appreciated.
I don't really dislike Hillary. She has more balls then most men. Her uncontrollability is her strength but also will prevent her from getting the part.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
L10: Grand Master
255 Reputation
#39
Quote from skiman View Post :
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.
I don't really understand what your deal is here. the media givin Obama a pass is nothing new. maybe you disagree, ok, that's your right. not sure what your point is.

Quote from politicaljunkie View Post :
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.
did these people die after requests for more protection were ignored?

Quote :
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.
taking sides at all is doing something wrong. that's not journalism.

for example.... take a look at the military rape issue that just came out. in listening to NPR yesterday not once did they mention Obama (either good or bad) but they did take the opportunity to bring up Bush... now, I am not trying to claim BO did anything wrong or that he is not against rape.... my point is that as commander in chief he is responsible for our military. case in point, nobody bothered to ask, why is rape up under Obama?

that is just one example, there are innumerable examples.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
#40
Quote from SigX View Post :
I don't really understand what your deal is here. the media givin Obama a pass is nothing new. maybe you disagree, ok, that's your right. not sure what your point is.


did these people die after requests for more protection were ignored?
I have no idea--but people ask for more security ALL THE TIME. I would be shocked if those embassies didn't request more security at some point in time. I think it is hilarious that the very branch of the government who turned down requests for more funds is now hammering the executive branch for not having enough security at this location.

Quote :
taking sides at all is doing something wrong. that's not journalism.

for example.... take a look at the military rape issue that just came out. in listening to NPR yesterday not once did they mention Obama (either good or bad) but they did take the opportunity to bring up Bush... now, I am not trying to claim BO did anything wrong or that he is not against rape.... my point is that as commander in chief he is responsible for our military. case in point, nobody bothered to ask, why is rape up under Obama?

that is just one example, there are innumerable examples.
True journalism died a long time ago. I don't know what they said about Bush. But the issue of rape has just become public and i doubt Obama heard about the severity of this before. What happens going forward is on Obama. When you are leading a huge organization, you can't prevent some from breaking the law. But you can take steps to minimize it once the problem is identified. The question for Obama isn't why rapes are up. The question is "what specific steps is the administration going to take to remedy this problem?"

The reason they didn't ask that specific question is because it is a loaded, stupidly partisan question that tries to assert that Obama is responsbile for the increase. Unless you think his administration has fostered a pro-rape environment, that is a ridiculous question.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
2 tickets to the gun show
1,036 Reputation
#41
Quote from politicaljunkie View Post :
All of those who spoke about this attack after the event hedged their language that said the initial theory wasn't confirmed.
Doesn't sound that way when Hillary was speaking at the funeral.
Quote from politicaljunkie View Post :
It just illustrates the political nature of this inquiry. I"ll give you one thing--at least it is over something that is more important than a blowjob.
Nono2 Come on. That wasn't about a blowjob. It was about lying under oath. It was also arguably about national security.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
L10: Grand Master
255 Reputation
#42
Quote from politicaljunkie View Post :
I have no idea
if not then its not the same issue and not directly comparable.

Quote :
--but people ask for more security ALL THE TIME. I would be shocked if those embassies didn't request more security at some point in time. I think it is hilarious that the very branch of the government who turned down requests for more funds is now hammering the executive branch for not having enough security at this location.
tough decisions have to be made and mistakes will happen. If all the embassies are asking for more protection then somebody is going to have to do a risk assessment and determine which places come first (most risk). in this case, obviously, somebody under estimated the risk to this particular embassy. we can discuss if Obama or Clinton knew about this request, we can argue if this embassy had a reasonable amount of protection, if monies are available... we can discuss all these things like rational people if we have our facts straight. lying about what happened (if allegations are true) gets us nowhere fast


Quote :
True journalism died a long time ago. I don't know what they said about Bush. But the issue of rape has just become public and i doubt Obama heard about the severity of this before. What happens going forward is on Obama. When you are leading a huge organization, you can't prevent some from breaking the law. But you can take steps to minimize it once the problem is identified. The question for Obama isn't why rapes are up. The question is "what specific steps is the administration going to take to remedy this problem?"
I am ok with that approach but my point is that when one person is in office its "lets move forward" but when the other guy is in office its "the captain of the shit is letting women get raped". and this is how politics works.

Quote :
The reason they didn't ask that specific question is because it is a loaded, stupidly partisan question that tries to assert that Obama is responsbile for the increase. Unless you think his administration has fostered a pro-rape environment, that is a ridiculous question.
??? well, one might argue that he fostered a pro rape environment (not purposefully but through incompetence). fact is rape is up and under his watch more women are doing more jobs in the military, something he supported....... these changes may have endangered women.............. he did not realize this would happen...... so, either nobody saw it coming or he willfully ignored it. like it or not people hold the leader of an organization responsible from time to time. you refuse to ask the question because you find it partisan but that in and of itself (IMHO) shows your partisan attitude.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
#43
Quote from politicaljunkie View Post :
The article said they revised the documents. And we've known that for quite some time. All documents are revised.


Carney said the WH was responsible for changing only ONE word
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
L10: Grand Master
944 Reputation
#44
Quote from dealgate View Post :
I don't really dislike Hillary. She has more balls then most men. Her uncontrollability is her strength but also will prevent her from getting the part.
The Democratic nomination is hers if she wants it. Who wins the White House is for the economy to decide, and it depends on who the Republicans nominate. I hope they pick a Ted Cruz/Sara Palin ticket.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0

Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.

#45
Quote from politicaljunkie View Post :
The article said they revised the documents. And we've known that for quite some time. All documents are revised. Before that information can be considered damning, we need to know why they were changed---there are a multitude of reasons why such a change could have been made. Some culpable, some not culpable. You are assuming they did it for political reasons. I honestly don't see how an attack due to a mob or an attack due to AQ in any way shows that the building was not adequately secured (which, IMO, is the biggest failing in this whole situation). Either explanation for the attack is bad, so i don't know how it would help BO politically one way or another. Not to mention, the truth would eventually come out as an investigation was performed--so i don't see the benefit.

But please feel free to hold another hearing to determine why.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/201...253638.htm

Quote :
A congressional official who reviewed 100 pages of emails and the 12 pages of talking points said former State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland expressed concerns about the talking points, writing that they "could be abused by members of Congress to beat the State Department for not paying attention to agency warnings so why would we want to seed the Hill."
There's one reason.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Page 3 of 158
1 2 3 4 5
Join the Conversation
Add a Comment
 
Slickdeals Price Tracker
Saving money just got easier.
Start Tracking Today
Copyright 1999 - 2015. Slickdeals, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Copyright / DMCA Notice  •  Privacy Policy  •  Terms of Service  •  Acceptable Use Policy (Rules)