Search in
VALENTINE'S DAY Video Games TV Computers Finance Home Apparel Tech Cameras Autos Health & Beauty Children Entertainment Travel Pets
Forum Thread

Media coverup in the Benghazi incident

dealgate 1,012 May 9, 2013 at 08:54 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

2,427 Comments

2 3 4 5 6

Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.

#46
“Those talking points originated from the intelligence community. They reflect the IC’s best assessments of what they thought had happened,” Carney told reporters at the White House press briefing on November 28, 2012. “The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two institutions were changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility’ because ‘consulate’ was inaccurate.”
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
#47
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.
There isn't really a fall to be taken, she has no position to lose. The "scandal" didn't impact the election near when it happened it doesn't resonate as important now, and it won't be detrimental three years from now.

It's basically wishful, desperate thinking along the lines "Well if we try hard enough, something is bound to be there so we can get Obama out of office."
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
#48
Quote from dealgate View Post :
This article pretty much sums up what most people already know:

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

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

*coughing*

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Oh shit, this is hilarious. There is a news coverup and the only one reporting on it is . . . an opinion piece from Faux News. So the GOP's private 'news' agency has a blogger who wrote an opinion piece . . . and? If this is such a big deal why isn't Faux News doing some investigative journalism? Oh that's right, cause all they can do is spin for the GOP and toss shit at their opponents.

*yawn*

More sad, pathetic attempts from the GOP to deflect from their obstructionism, incompetence, racism, and bigotry.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
#49
Quote from Deusxmachina View Post :
Nono2 Come on. That wasn't about a blowjob. It was about lying under oath. It was also arguably about national security.
National security? Oh come on!

And why did they put him under fricken oath over a blowjob?!?
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
#50
Quote from travathian View Post :
Oh shit, this is hilarious.

LMAO


ABC News 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.


other networks are starting to come around.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
#51
Quote from SigX View Post :
if not then its not the same issue and not directly comparable.
They are comparable when you hear the reasons why the republicans are making such a big deal. It isn't that there were calls for additional security. They just talks about whether or not the administration lied and the severity of a situation resulting in American deaths.

Quote :
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
Neither does focusing on this kind of "gotcha" bullshit. If these scmucks were actually concerned about this country instead of scoring political points--they'd be asking better questions that aren't just aimed at trying to shame or politically damage Obama and Clinton. This whole thing is a fiasco.

Quote :
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.
Perhaps then we shouldn't spend our time worrying why the media isn't asking loaded, stupidly partisan questions. Lets focus on productive approaches, not fostering more partisan bullshit.

Quote :
??? 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.
WAIT a minute here. Are you seriously blaming the increase of rapes on the mere presence of women in the armed forces? As if men can't control themselves? That is total bullshit. I think if you put women around military men, it is entirely reasonable that we don't expect those men to rape the women. Call me crazy. There are many women who work with men in my office and i'm pretty sure we haven't had any rapes.

Quote from empiretc View Post :
Carney said the WH was responsible for changing only ONE word
OK, so do we know who changed the other words? I don't recall any evidence as to who was making those changes. I'm guessing a ton of people in the state department had a lot to do with that wordsmithing and they aren't in the white house.
Last edited by politicaljunkie May 10, 2013 at 02:07 PM
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
#52
Quote from OhNoItsDEVO View Post :
There's one reason.
What does that have to do with the talking points about the attack? You're jumping around here...
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0

Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.

Joined Oct 2007
2 tickets to the gun show
1,077 Reputation
Pro
#53
Quote from politicaljunkie View Post :
And why did they put him under fricken oath over a blowjob?!?
He wasn't under oath over a blowjob.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
#54
Quote from politicaljunkie View Post :
OK, so do we know who changed the other words? I don't recall any evidence as to who was making those changes. I'm guessing a ton of people in the state department had a lot to do with that wordsmithing and they aren't in the white house.

maybe.....and who was the head of the state department at that time???

Who called for these edits? Who gave Rice her story for the Sunday shows?

these should be easy questions to answer....


But for some reason, they just can't.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
#55
CYA time?

White House holds 'deep background' Benghazi briefing [politico.com]

Quote :
The White House held a "deep background" briefing with reporters on Friday afternoon to discuss recent revelations about the Benghazi investigation, sources familiar with the meeting tell POLITICO.

The meeting was conducted on "deep background," according to White House spokesman Josh Earnest, but sources told POLITICO that the existence of the meeting was "off the record." The meeting began around 12:45 p.m. and postponed the daily, on-the-record White House press briefing until mid-afternoon.
Quote :
UPDATE (3:05 p.m.): I asked Earnest to explain the meaning of "deep background," as defined by the White House, for my readers. He emails:
Deep background means that the info presented by the briefers can be used in reporting but the briefers can't be quoted.
UPDATE (3:30 p.m.): White House press secretary Jay Carney addressed the meeting at today's public briefing. He said reporters from 14 news organizations were present, including television, print and online.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Joined Oct 2007
2 tickets to the gun show
1,077 Reputation
Pro
#56
I haven't watched the hearing. If the following article is true, is Greg Hicks lying?
http://www.hannity.com/article/be...lout/17282
Quote :
Just to re-cap, here are some of the main things we learned from yesterday's hearing.

- The YouTube video was a “non-event” in Libya. It was never reported to anyone, even Hillary Clinton herself whom Hicks spoke to at 2am, that there was a protest involved. Perhaps the biggest question remains, who then came up with the YouTube narrative for the talking points and why?

- State Department official Beth Jones knew on September 12th the true nature of this attack, telling Libya's ambassador to Washington, “The group that conducted the attacks, Ansar al-Sharia, is affiliated with Islamic terrorists.”

- Multiple stand down orders were given, ... who gave those stand down orders?

- Hicks said his “jaw-dropped” on the day Susan Rice went on the Sunday talk shows claiming a YouTube video was responsible for the attack. He called it “embarrassing” and also pointed out the public embarrassment of Libya's president, who on the very same show told us the real story.

this president has made it a policy not to jump to conclusions when it comes to tragedies or events. ... Yet in the case of Benghazi, there was an immediate jump to conclusions – the wrong conclusion – based on what?
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
#57
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.
Why did they say that they had nothing to do with this and that it all came from the intelligence community? Doesn't seem to be a truthful statement now.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
#58
Quote from travathian View Post :
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

*coughing*

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Oh shit, this is hilarious. There is a news coverup and the only one reporting on it is . . . an opinion piece from Faux News. So the GOP's private 'news' agency has a blogger who wrote an opinion piece . . . and? If this is such a big deal why isn't Faux News doing some investigative journalism? Oh that's right, cause all they can do is spin for the GOP and toss shit at their opponents.

*yawn*

More sad, pathetic attempts from the GOP to deflect from their obstructionism, incompetence, racism, and bigotry.
Thank you for that wonderful contribution.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
#59
Quote from empiretc View Post :
maybe.....and who was the head of the state department at that time???

Who called for these edits? Who gave Rice her story for the Sunday shows?

these should be easy questions to answer....

But for some reason, they just can't.
Clinton isn't the White House.

I agree that we should find out who made these edits. But i also think that everyone is justifiably on the defensive considering the way the republicans are acting.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0

Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.

#60
Quote from travathian View Post :
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

*coughing*

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Oh shit, this is hilarious. There is a news coverup and the only one reporting on it is . . . an opinion piece from Faux News. So the GOP's private 'news' agency has a blogger who wrote an opinion piece . . . and? If this is such a big deal why isn't Faux News doing some investigative journalism? Oh that's right, cause all they can do is spin for the GOP and toss shit at their opponents.

*yawn*

More sad, pathetic attempts from the GOP to deflect from their obstructionism, incompetence, racism, and bigotry.
ABC broke the story...
Hell even Huffpost is covering it.

Quote from politicaljunkie View Post :
What does that have to do with the talking points about the attack? You're jumping around here...
It has everything to do with the talking points doesn't it?
It gives us a better idea of why they chose the talking points they chose.
Last edited by OhNoItsDEVO May 10, 2013 at 02:39 PM
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Page 4 of 162
2 3 4 5 6
Join the Conversation
Add a Comment
 
Slickdeals Price Tracker
Saving money just got easier.
Start Tracking Today
Copyright 1999 - 2016. Slickdeals, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Copyright / Infringement Policy  •  Privacy Policy  •  Terms of Service  •  Acceptable Use Policy (Rules)