19
   

Do You Think The News Media Has Appropiately Covered Benghazi?

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Wed 24 Oct, 2012 02:20 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:

We have a situation where our embassy in a very dangerous place in the world requests additional security and instead has it reduced.


It's not an embassy, it's a consulate. Get your basic facts straight if you want to pull off the imperious asshole routine correctly...

Quote:
The next morning, our president made an arguably vague comment about "acts of terror" and then jetted off to Las Vegas for a political fund-raiser.


'Arguably vague' if you're looking to pick an argument with him, which it's perfectly clear you and other right-wingers are.

Cycloptichorn
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 24 Oct, 2012 02:32 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
That's the best you have to offer?

"It's a consulate not an embassy"

Really?

You are such a tool for the Democrats, are you EJ Dionne or Alan Colmes in real life?
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Wed 24 Oct, 2012 02:39 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
The really funny thing about this, is that I remember seeing this before. It was called the 'Al Qaa Qaa incident' in which it was revealed a week before the election that Bush had allowed a major storehouse of weaponry to fall into enemy hands after his amateurish takeover of Iraq. These weapons were then used to kill Americans and Iraqis who were loyal to our side, without a doubt.

The Dems screamed about it, the voters didn't give a ****. This is just the flip of that. I think most people realize that we can't spend an unlimited amount of money to have a massive defense presence everywhere, and we can't stop people from attacking us, so things will happen from time to time.

But, if you want to go on yelling about it, hey, be my guest. Nobody will care and the issue is going to go away after the election one way or another. As I said earlier, the fact is that under GOP administrations, you and your ilk are hardly a critic of ANYTHING that goes wrong. You don't assign blame to the leadership for ANYTHING that went south on their watch. So, why should any of us care when you get your panties all twisted up now? It's clearly being done for partisan advantage, and no other reason.

Just to make myself clear: I don't for a single second believe that you actually give a **** about the guys who got killed over there. At all. You just see a tool and want to use it.

Cycloptichorn
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 24 Oct, 2012 02:45 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Your projecting Cyclo
Rockhead
 
  3  
Reply Wed 24 Oct, 2012 02:49 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
claim to ignore me, but steal my material?

how very romney of you...

(it's you're, by the way)
julsburd
  Selected Answer
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 24 Oct, 2012 07:48 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
I couldn't agree more with your post Finn. I have learned over the past 4 years that I have to watch Fox and MSNBC at the same time in order to TRY and sort out the fact from the fiction. It is truly apalling to me how partisan and un factual our "news" sources have become. The fact that only Fox News has covered this very important and tragic event is a horrible testament to just how bad our MSM has become. If we can't have a fair and investigative news source what do we have in our democracy?? How can the liberals continue to "drink the kool aid" and sluff this news off as strictly political? I am certain our President and his administration have done some seriously bad things and ALL of our supposed investigative reporters need to be digging out the truth. We are not a solid democracy and we don't stand a chance in the future if we can't count on at least that.
julsburd
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 24 Oct, 2012 07:59 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
You still haven't answered the question. Even though you obviously believe this is a made up crisis by the right don't you think that ALL of our news sources should be covering it equally? How is that NBC, ABC and CBS (not to mention your favorite MSNBC) hasn't covered it all today??
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Wed 24 Oct, 2012 08:38 pm
@julsburd,
First of all, seeing as you don't know me at all, how could you possibly think my 'favorite' channel is MSNBC?

The truth is, I watch o cable news channels at all, as they are for the most part full of sensational and insipid reporting. I prefer to read my news, thank you very much.

Regarding your question, the answer is clearly no - cable news (and regular news really) is a money-making business, and they know quite well what makes them money and what doesn't. These guys don't report on old news- there's nothing new happening with this story and likely isn't to be anytime soon, so why keep talking about it?

The fact that Fox does indeed keep doing so, while the other news orgs don't, should answer your question for you. I don't believe this is a made up controversy... I know it is.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  3  
Reply Wed 24 Oct, 2012 09:51 pm
@julsburd,
Are you serious Juls?

Do you really think that serious news channels should spend much time covering politically motivated charges that were made up by a political party to score political points?

I want journalists to be covering real stories based on facts with reasoned analysis instead of political spin. Apparently people at NBC, ABC and CBS agree.



0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Oct, 2012 10:01 pm
@Butrflynet,
Watergate proved that the US system worked. It set a standard whereby no journalist could ever investigate any government official that was committing war crimes or felonies.

Out of sight, out of mind. A perfect solution for a country that has criminals running the highest offices in the land.

Lucky that they keep y'all supplied with ample lubricant.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Oct, 2012 10:04 pm
@RABEL222,
Quote:
run down our children with bulldozers.


You're really learning how to pump out that ole propaganda, Rabel. See Herr Wandel about a raise.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Oct, 2012 10:11 pm
@julsburd,
Quote:
If we can't have a fair and investigative news source what do we have in our democracy??


The same thing that you have had forever, Julsburd, a rogue terrorist nation that rivals the harm done by the Nazis. The only difference is the US has spread that harm far and wide. And of course, it has been able to rob many more countries and peoples of their wealth.

0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 24 Oct, 2012 10:16 pm
@Rockhead,
Quote:
(it's you're, by the way)


Cheap shot, Rocky.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Oct, 2012 05:22 am
@JTT,
I think you've got Rabel all wrong. Rabel was talking about Israel sinking American ships, (USS Liberty) and running over Americans with bulldozers, (Rachel Corrie). Alright she wasn't a child at the time, but she was still very young.

The only reason Republicans are making such a fuss about this particular incident is because they seek political capital. For the rest of the world it was yesterday's news a long time ago.

There's no political capital to be made from five hundred odd innocent Pakistani civilians killed by US drone attacks though.

Quote:
Emmerson presented a broad critique of the U.S.-led war on terrorism under the George W. Bush administration in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, denouncing the controversial practices of rendition of waterboarding and "a tidal wave of panic legislation across the globe which has caused incalculable and lasting damage to the architecture of international human rights law."

He said that although Obama had initially retreated from Bush's "global war paradigm" — which viewed the struggle against terrorism as a permanent war — he said a similar mindset has "reared its head" in the past 18 months. He cited figures compiled by the London Bureau of Investigative Journalism, which alleged that at least 474 civilians have been killed in Pakistan alone and that at least 50 civilians have died in follow-up strikes, in which civilians who came to the aid of victims of previous strikes were killed.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/un-official-to-probe-drone-strikes-that-kill-civilians-8227591.html
JTT
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 26 Oct, 2012 06:09 am
@izzythepush,
Quote:
I think you've got Rabel all wrong. Rabel was talking about Israel sinking American ships, (USS Liberty) and running over Americans with bulldozers, (Rachel Corrie). Alright she wasn't a child at the time, but she was still very young.


I know exactly what he was referring to, Izzy. That doesn't make this constant bleating any less the shameless propaganda that the US and its people regularly engage in.
RABEL222
 
  2  
Reply Fri 26 Oct, 2012 11:30 am
@JTT,
Kind of like your bleating about the sinful U. S. government.
JTT
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 26 Oct, 2012 12:04 pm
@RABEL222,
Not even close, Rabel. Not even in the same ballpark, not even the same solar system.

The constant bleating from you lot has contributed greatly, [by hiding these vicious assaults on the planet's innocents] to the deaths of millions, the wrecked lives of tens of millions more, the very food stolen from the mouths of multiple millions more.

"our children" - have you no sense of shame? Half a million Iraqi children dead from your vicious and unnecessary embargo.
H2O MAN
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 26 Oct, 2012 12:09 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,

Once again, you are correct.


Finn dAbuzz wrote:

The polarization in this country is something else.

I can somewhat understand supporters of Obama wanting to give him the benefit of the doubt and buying the "fog of war" and wanting to take time to get it right explanations, but dismissing it out of hand as inconsequential or a manufactured controversy is astounding' and, to me, appalling.

We have a situation where our embassy in a very dangerous place in the world requests additional security and instead has it reduced.

On 9/11 when you would expect our government to be on high alert for Islamist attacks, one, not surprisingly takes place in Benghazi and two of our diplomats, including our ambassador are murdered. Two former Navy seals who are in the vicinity for a thus far unspecified mission (probably associated with getting control of all the weapons that were let loose when Ghadaffi went down) attempt to come to the rescue of our people and themselves are killed.

We now know that our State Department watched the tragedy unfold in real time and within 2 hours of the beginning of the attack sent between 300 and 400 e-mails to top administration staff advising them of the attack and that a known terrorist group had taken responsibility for it.

The next morning, our president made an arguably vague comment about "acts of terror" and then jetted off to Las Vegas for a political fund-raiser.

Thereafter everything coming out of the Administration asserted that the attack was a spontaneous spin-off from a demonstration in reaction to a two-bit video that insulted Mohammed. This extended so far as having UN Ambassador Rice going on five Sunday talk shows to tell the nation that our "best intelligence" was that "in fact" it was a spontaneous spin-off from a demonstration protesting the video.

Meanwhile the President himself repeatedly declared that we didn't yet know if it was a terrorist attack...despite his claim at Debate #2 that he declared it as such on 9/12 in the Rose Garden.

Eventually the story started to crack and people placed under oath before congress acknowledged/admitted it was a terrorist attack (Which, by the way, the Libyan president flatly declared the day after it occurred, and in a manner which essentially mocked the alternative story being told).

Some two weeks after the attack, the White House Press Secretary announces to the press on Airforce One that it is "self-evident" that it was a act of terrorism. At a subsequent briefing he tells the press "there's no question that something went wrong."

Still, the president in one of his bold submissions to the piercing questioning of the ladies on The View, refuses to acknowledge that it was an act of terror, and speaks before the UN without declaring it an attack by terrorists and referring to the video six times.

Now everyone knows absolutely that not only was it an attack on the clearly
significant date of 9/11 by Islamist terrorists, but there was never a demonstration in Benghazi protesting the video.

And this is an insignificant story that doesn't deserve the attention of the news media?

The questions that need to be answered:

Why were the requests for additional security in Libya rejected and existing security reduced? Who made these decisions?

Why did the Administration tell the American people that the two murdered former Seals were part of the Ambassador's security detail when they clearly were not.

Why did Ambassador Rice go on her TV tour to tell a story that the Administration knew was false?

Why wasn't there an effort to come to the aid of embattled Americans in Benghazi? It appears that the diplomats probably died in the first two hours of the attack, but how would the Administration of known that, and it is known that the former Seals didn't meet there end until some seven hours after the attack began. There are reports indicating that they were on a rooftop with a machine gun when hit by RPGs. The machine gun is said to be encrusted with their blood, suggesting that they fought on after being wounded.

We have four heroes murdered by terrorists and there is strong reason to believe that if our government didn't fail them prior to and after the attack, they didn't regard their sacrifice sufficient to deserve the truth about what actually happened.

There are only two possible explanations:

Incredible incompetence
A lying cover-up attempt.

We are less than two weeks away from a presidential election, and the MSM seems content with allowing a governmental "investigation" designed to take it past election day (Remember it took the FBI agents investigation the matter three weeks to get to Benghazi).

"Obviously something went wrong," but the MSM doesn't think voters should know what went wrong and led to another disaster in the region before election day?

As for comparisons to Watergate, I remember that time and I remember partisan supporters of Nixon dismissing it out of hand and arguing that it was a Liberal manufactured controversy.






0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  2  
Reply Fri 26 Oct, 2012 03:31 pm
@Butrflynet,
Butrflynet wrote:

If we still had a decent news media in this country, I might be interested in more coverage of important news events.

As it is, most of them just pete and repeat the copy from the originating "news" agency, never doing any fact checking, interviewing or confirmations of their own.

When I want some balanced, investigative news reporting about events, I turn to the BBC and other international news media and independent writers.

A Woodward/Bernstein standard of expose just isn't possible with today's journalists and publishers in the US.


Interestingly enough, you can get more from the UK press on this topic than our own:

From the linked article


Quote:
Charles Woods, father of Tyrone Woods, said he thought Barack Obama had 'no remorse' over the attack and felt Hillary Clinton was 'not telling the truth'.

And he revealed that at the ceremony for the return of Tyrone's body, the Vice President approached his family and asked, 'Did your son always have balls the size of cue balls?'


Now that doesn't sound like Joe Biden does it?

Apparently Mrs. Woods was more impressed by the reception they received.


Quote:
'They were all wonderful. They held my hand, offered condolences, gave warm hugs, and were extremely compassionate and genuinely sad for my loss, as I fought back tears and tried to project an image of strength to honor my SEAL son.'


An interesting dichotomy.

Without knowing either of them, it still seems likely that the father would make up such an outrageous tale, and it's not very surprising that a grieving mother would appreciate any comfort offered by such an esteemed group.

You would have to ask Mr. Woods why he believes the efforts were insincere, but it is hard for me to imagine that they were. Perhaps he was sensing an awkwardness born of guilty consciences.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Oct, 2012 03:33 pm
@julsburd,
julsburd wrote:

...ALL of our supposed investigative reporters need to be digging out the truth. We are not a solid democracy and we don't stand a chance in the future if we can't count on at least that.


Couldn't agree more with you.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 04/14/2021 at 01:24:02