Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2013/05/09 22:52:33
Subject: Juxtaposition of the Arias trial vs. the Benghazi hearing
No matter what political views or opinions you hold, who you vote for, the end is the same - you vote them to do the job, and to be open and honest as your representative. If something goes wrong they should be accountable for it, and honest with the reasons why.
Those are the fateful words Republicans have been trying to hang around former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's neck since she first uttered them at a January congressional hearing. But it is also the question facing the Benghazi investigation itself.
Can the inquiry into the attacks on the US consulate in Libya yield meaningful new information? Can it unearth facts that reveal the Obama administration to have been mendacious, incompetent or just understandably confused amidst the fog of war? And will the public care?
For months, the Benghazi story was safely ghettoized in the conservative press (save for some dogged reporting by CBS News' Sharyl Attkisson). But Wednesday's hearing rekindled broad media interest, as the former deputy to murdered Ambassador Christopher Stevens gave testimony that repeatedly undercut administration claims.
Gregory Hicks testified that everyone knew early on that the consulate had been the target of a terrorist attack, not a protest over an anti-Muslim YouTube video. He said that when he objected to the official talking points, administration praise turned into an effective demotion. Hicks added that Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills forbade him from talking to a Republican investigator, in a somewhat intimidating fashion.
Whistleblowers claimed that a US armed force in Tripoli was twice instructed not to deploy to Benghazi. They told Congress they did not know who gave the "stand down" orders or the reasoning behind the decision.
After the attack, the wounded ambassador was taken to a hospital controlled by the Islamists responsible. Hicks testified that Americans didn't go get him because they were being set up. "We suspected we were being baited into a trap and so we did not want to go send our people into an ambush," he said
As the New York Times reported,
"If the testimony did not fundamentally challenge the facts and timeline of the Benghazi attack and the administration's response to it, it vividly illustrated the anxiety of top State Department officials about how the events would be publicly portrayed."
Some might go further and say that the hearings raised serious questions about both the security situation in Benghazi and the veracity of the administration's initial public account. Hicks called Ambassador Susan Rice's early explanations "stunning" and "embarrassing".
Did the White House want to avoid any perception that a terrorist attack, launched on the anniversary of 9/11, was mishandled as President Obama was running for reelection? Was there too light a military footprint because the earlier campaign for regime change in Libya was sold to the American people as requiring no boots on the ground? Who even knew what, when?
Republicans have raised similar questions with mixed results since the incident. GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney assailed Obama's response to the Benghazi assault during a debate. The exchange was so widely viewed as disastrous for Romney that the White House still cites it when pushing back against Republican critics.
The main target of the investigation at this point isn't Obama but Clinton, the presumptive favorite for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination. The findings could have an impact both on her legacy and her reputation for being able to field that 3am phone call featured prominently in a 2008 Clinton campaign ad.
But the more Benghazi looks like an anti-Clinton fishing expedition, the less likely the inquiry is to permeate the consciousness of the ideologically uncommitted.
Terrorism happens. No serious person is hammering the Obama administration over the Boston Marathon bombings, which happened on US soil. No government can be omnipotent in protecting the public from harm, much less diplomats stationed in dangerous areas of the world.
But political leaders can be as transparent as national security will allow about their responses to such assaults. In this case, the obvious inadequacy of the security and the appearance of a cover-up warrant further investigation – as does the country's duty to four dead Americans.
Disciplined Republican questioning and critical witness testimony returned Benghazi to the headlines. But the broader questions remain: Who was giving the orders regarding security? What did the president know and when did he know it? And how about the ex-secretary of state, who may want to be our next president?
The answers will tell us what difference this makes.
2013/05/10 00:06:16
Subject: Re:Juxtaposition of the Arias trial vs. the Benghazi hearing
whembly wrote: I've said it before, there's a distinction.
There really isn't, but if it helps you to sleep at night to rationalize it in such a superficial manner, then go for it. It isn't like anyone can stop you. This stopped being a 'search for truth' a long time ago, and for once most of the public isn't buying into the witch hunt. That is probably why the story has shifted from "we don't have any real information that makes the point that we wish we could make" to "why won't anyone pay attention to us conjecture about the point that we wish we could make, but have evidence to back up". If you can't dupe the people into your outrage, try to get them outraged that no one is outraged.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
2013/05/10 04:36:25
Subject: Re:Juxtaposition of the Arias trial vs. the Benghazi hearing
whembly wrote: That's the fething POINT I'm trying to make! Public perception isn't what's driving the mainstream media. Let me reiterate in my original OP: This is the power of the media and what it chooses to emphasize and downplay, on full display.
]
I don't know how many more times I can explain this. Either you believe as you do, that the media avoids stories for political reasons and will leave out a potentially high rating story in order to pursue it's collective hive mind political beliefs.
Or you can believe that the media, being a very competitive industry that chases ratings wherever it might appear, simply follows the viewing numbers. And that means when a story doesn't rate, it doesn't get shown.
I'm sorry... so you believe beyond the shadow of doubt, that everything is honky-dory?
No, I didn't say that. Read what I'm saying please, and don't just make up nonsense to make things easier for yourself.
Those whistleblowers were on the fething GROUND in Libya and are UNDER OATH. The have just a little bit credibility and deserve as much than you outrightly dismissing them.
Who have I outright dismissed? What are you even talking about?
Interesting... cool. Sorta off topic, but why ya'll call Australia "Oz"?? Is it because of how ya'll enunciate that "Aust"-ralia as "Oz"? o.O
You know how you guys abbreviate everything in to 3 letters. ATF. FBI. EPL.
We just take the first syllable and use that, and maybe add a 'y' or 'a' after. We're really lazy like that.
Sandy Hook? From day fething one, it was used to push for major Gun Control... why? Because it fits the narratives...
What the fething ballsack?
That's a narrative? We're in this stupid thread, one of approximately 17 trillion threads about Islamic terrorism, talking as if that is one of the biggest things affecting people's lives... when you compare US deaths to Islamic terrorism since 1980 (about 3,500) to US deaths by firearms (about 1,000,000).
And you want to talk about what fits the narrative?! You seriously need some perspective.
Let's further expound the Media's coverage of the Gosnell trial shall we? When the major news network were called into question about that, it was responded by saying "it's a local news". Isn't that just the case with those women in Ohio held in captivity for 10 years "a local news" story? And, yet it's all over the Mainstream Media (as it should be).
You don't see the sensationalist angle in the story of three women kidnapped and held as sex slaves for 10 years? You don't see how that is, basically, a very exciting crime story?
Hey... don't you see how the media took the time to investigate that, with gumption on that very issue? Now where was that same effort to Benghazi? I don't see it.
Given the extent of the interference in Iraq, and the fact that it led to a war where several thousand US troops and hundreds of thousands of others died, the media response to the way the Bush admin manipulated the CIA was very muted.
Now by your theory that was because of liberal bias, and therefore Bush was a liberal or something. Or its because stories about long running inquiries that drag out little bits of information over months and years just don't rate that well, and thereby don't get covered in the media.
Now, you can use that to conclude that mainstream media ends up covering trivial, sensationalist stuff and misses the stories that really matter, and I'd agree. But I'd then point out that what they do and don't cover cuts both ways, important but pointless stories that serve both the right and left are missed, in order to talk about whatever celebrity just went in to rehab.
You keep bringing up the Clinton thing... you do know why he was impeached. That actually happened... because he lied under oath. I don't think you're supporting anything everytime you keep bringing up Clinton's impeachment.
The 'he lied under oath' thing is just as misleading... at least my simplification was pithy
I mean, if you really want to go in to it, you start with the conviction of Starr and a small number of Republicans that there was some great scandal at the bottom of the Whitewater mess, and that the Clintons would be brought down by it. And then you watch that conviction churn through millions of dollars while uncovering exactly nothing, and then to justify that waste of time and money you watch that morph in to an investigation of Clinton's sexual actions because there was actually something there to uncover, which ultimately led to Clinton being brought in to be questioned on a matter that bore simply no relation to his political actions. And ultimately, whether a lie under oath is a lie under oath, or it only matters if the lie was about something relevant to people other than Clinton and his wife... well that was answered both in government, by the failure of the impeachment, and by the people, in Clinton's continued popularity.
I thought it was easier just to say blowjob that type all that out.
Glad you feel that way... that's why I feel like it's important to have sunlight on the Media's coverages to keep them honest... because, really... the Media does most of the watching on our politicians to keep them honest.
Oh, I think its very important to discuss the ways the media works and how the stories they select have a real and meaningful impact on political discourse.
But I believe very strongly that the 'liberal media' and 'media bias' drumbeats simply aren't true, and actually distract from how the media really does report these matters.
Say what? See... that's why *I* question how you get US news in the land of Oz...
Pat Tillman was ALL OVER THE fething NEWS and the media kept investigating (as it should). It's NOT a forgotten story... gak, we hear it all the time whenever the St. Louis Rams play the fething Arizona Cardinals (Tillman's old team).
All over the news? You gonna claims it's gotten the coverage Benghazi got? Seriously?
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2013/05/10 12:05:55
Subject: Juxtaposition of the Arias trial vs. the Benghazi hearing
Rented Tritium wrote: We can all agree that the Arias trial is stupid and isn't really national news, though, right?
Yes but it had a cutie and taped naughty conversations. Naughty naughty STABSTABSTABSTABSTABSTABSTAB!
Don't tell me men are the only crazy killers out there
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2013/05/10 13:09:36
Subject: Juxtaposition of the Arias trial vs. the Benghazi hearing
Rented Tritium wrote: We can all agree that the Arias trial is stupid and isn't really national news, though, right?
Yes but it had a cutie and taped naughty conversations.
Yeah, if Benghazi had this it would be bigger news. The Media loves sex or implied sex. It sells, sells, sells!
Very true.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2013/05/10 13:30:16
Subject: Juxtaposition of the Arias trial vs. the Benghazi hearing
Yeah, i don;t connect Petraeus's Fall and Benghazi at all. Sorry.
That's like saying the suicide of that Clinton advisor in the 90's (Vince Foster?) was somehow linked to Whitewater.... oh wait... I think the some people did say that!
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
2013/05/10 13:37:17
Subject: Juxtaposition of the Arias trial vs. the Benghazi hearing
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2013/05/10 13:43:26
Subject: Juxtaposition of the Arias trial vs. the Benghazi hearing
Yeah, i don;t connect Petraeus's Fall and Benghazi at all. Sorry.
That's like saying the suicide of that Clinton advisor in the 90's (Vince Foster?) was somehow linked to Whitewater.... oh wait... I think the some people did say that!
I wasn't exactly being serious on the whole sex thing...
Full Frontal Nerdity
2013/05/10 14:28:06
Subject: Re:Juxtaposition of the Arias trial vs. the Benghazi hearing
Well... it's catching on at least. Better late than never.
NBC's Lisa Myers said this morning on TV that Democrats have been calling her to attempt to undermine the testimony of Benghazi whistleblower Gregory Hicks:
"There is something called Benghazi going on," said Myers. "And I think the Democrats now are starting to worry about it. I started--I got calls from a number of Democrats yesterday trying to undermine Greg Hicks's testimony, saying he wasn't demoted, etc. So I think they feel that some damage was done by those three witnesses on Wednesday."
Because it's unspinnable.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2013/05/10 15:09:03
Subject: Re:Juxtaposition of the Arias trial vs. the Benghazi hearing
Acting Deputy State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell says that is not true.
"The Department has not and will not retaliate against Mr. Hicks," said Ventrell. "As he testified yesterday, he decided to shorten his assignment in Libya following the attacks, in part due to understandable family reasons, and he has followed standard employment processes."
Ventrell says Hicks has had neither a reduction in pay nor in grade and is free to compete with other foreign service officers for his next posting.
Seems like Mr. Hicks just feels like he's being hung out to dry, but according to his superiors, he has not experienced a reduction in pay or grade.
Veriamp wrote:I have emerged from my lurking to say one thing. When Mat taught the Necrons to feel, he taught me to love.
Acting Deputy State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell says that is not true.
"The Department has not and will not retaliate against Mr. Hicks," said Ventrell. "As he testified yesterday, he decided to shorten his assignment in Libya following the attacks, in part due to understandable family reasons, and he has followed standard employment processes."
Ventrell says Hicks has had neither a reduction in pay nor in grade and is free to compete with other foreign service officers for his next posting.
Seems like Mr. Hicks just feels like he's being hung out to dry, but according to his superiors, he has not experienced a reduction in pay or grade.
Awesome. Both are now on record. Therefor one has committed perjury and should go to jail. Lets appoint a special prosecutor and drop the dime on someone.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2013/05/10 18:36:28
Subject: Re:Juxtaposition of the Arias trial vs. the Benghazi hearing
State's going to take the hit, not the administration.
On Politico at the moment: "Report: Terror references removed from Benghazi talking points"
Highlights:
Politico wrote:Talking points on the attack on the U.S. diplomats in Benghazi given to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice had been extensively revised before she received them by the State Department to remove references to terrorism, according to a report on Friday.
ABC News, which acquired 12 different drafts of the talking points, disclosed that the State Department requested that the CIA scrub references to an Al Qaeda-linked group, Ansar Al-Sharia.
A State Department spokeswoman, Victoria Nuland, specifically asked the CIA to delete a paragraph citing prior attacks that could’ve been warning signs because that “could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either?” according to email reviewed by ABC. The paragraph was struck entirely.
...
The report also appears to contradict repeated assertions from White House Press Secretary Jay Carney and others that the talking points were a product of the nation’s intelligence agencies and were crafted without political interference.
“Those talking points originated from the intelligence community,” Carney told reporters at a White House press briefing in November. “They reflect the IC’s best assessments of what they thought had happened.” Carney said the only outside edits were “stylistic.”
2013/05/10 18:40:46
Subject: Juxtaposition of the Arias trial vs. the Benghazi hearing
whembly wrote: That's the fething POINT I'm trying to make! Public perception isn't what's driving the mainstream media. Let me reiterate in my original OP: This is the power of the media and what it chooses to emphasize and downplay, on full display.
]
I don't know how many more times I can explain this. Either you believe as you do, that the media avoids stories for political reasons and will leave out a potentially high rating story in order to pursue it's collective hive mind political beliefs.
That's what I'm say'n brah!
Or you can believe that the media, being a very competitive industry that chases ratings wherever it might appear, simply follows the viewing numbers. And that means when a story doesn't rate, it doesn't get shown.
That's part of their operating strategy... they've become more adversarial and practical advocates.
I'm sorry... so you believe beyond the shadow of doubt, that everything is honky-dory?
No, I didn't say that. Read what I'm saying please, and don't just make up nonsense to make things easier for yourself.
Sorry, you're giving that impression.
Those whistleblowers were on the fething GROUND in Libya and are UNDER OATH. The have just a little bit credibility and deserve as much than you outrightly dismissing them.
Who have I outright dismissed? What are you even talking about?
Responding your response, here, I'll help:
sebster wrote: And yeah, you posted a series of bullet points, but each is either debatable claims, nothing like the smoking gun you need to actually make this relevant, or just fething pointless
Interesting... cool. Sorta off topic, but why ya'll call Australia "Oz"?? Is it because of how ya'll enunciate that "Aust"-ralia as "Oz"? o.O
You know how you guys abbreviate everything in to 3 letters. ATF. FBI. EPL.
We just take the first syllable and use that, and maybe add a 'y' or 'a' after. We're really lazy like that.
Heh... good to know.
Sandy Hook? From day fething one, it was used to push for major Gun Control... why? Because it fits the narratives...
What the fething ballsack?
That's a narrative? We're in this stupid thread, one of approximately 17 trillion threads about Islamic terrorism, talking as if that is one of the biggest things affecting people's lives... when you compare US deaths to Islamic terrorism since 1980 (about 3,500) to US deaths by firearms (about 1,000,000).
And you want to talk about what fits the narrative?! You seriously need some perspective.
You missed the point. o.O
Let's further expound the Media's coverage of the Gosnell trial shall we? When the major news network were called into question about that, it was responded by saying "it's a local news". Isn't that just the case with those women in Ohio held in captivity for 10 years "a local news" story? And, yet it's all over the Mainstream Media (as it should be).
You don't see the sensationalist angle in the story of three women kidnapped and held as sex slaves for 10 years? You don't see how that is, basically, a very exciting crime story?
I noticed how you're not engaging me on the gosnell trial... that has sensationalism galore.
And yes, the 3 kidnapped women ARE big news... that's why I used that example. Gosnell? Not so much... why?
Hey... don't you see how the media took the time to investigate that, with gumption on that very issue? Now where was that same effort to Benghazi? I don't see it.
Given the extent of the interference in Iraq, and the fact that it led to a war where several thousand US troops and hundreds of thousands of others died, the media response to the way the Bush admin manipulated the CIA was very muted.
Now by your theory that was because of liberal bias, and therefore Bush was a liberal or something. Or its because stories about long running inquiries that drag out little bits of information over months and years just don't rate that well, and thereby don't get covered in the media.
Now, you can use that to conclude that mainstream media ends up covering trivial, sensationalist stuff and misses the stories that really matter, and I'd agree. But I'd then point out that what they do and don't cover cuts both ways, important but pointless stories that serve both the right and left are missed, in order to talk about whatever celebrity just went in to rehab.
Seb...it's been my assertation that Benghazi is NOT trivial.
You keep bringing up the Clinton thing... you do know why he was impeached. That actually happened... because he lied under oath. I don't think you're supporting anything everytime you keep bringing up Clinton's impeachment.
The 'he lied under oath' thing is just as misleading... at least my simplification was pithy
I mean, if you really want to go in to it, you start with the conviction of Starr and a small number of Republicans that there was some great scandal at the bottom of the Whitewater mess, and that the Clintons would be brought down by it. And then you watch that conviction churn through millions of dollars while uncovering exactly nothing, and then to justify that waste of time and money you watch that morph in to an investigation of Clinton's sexual actions because there was actually something there to uncover, which ultimately led to Clinton being brought in to be questioned on a matter that bore simply no relation to his political actions. And ultimately, whether a lie under oath is a lie under oath, or it only matters if the lie was about something relevant to people other than Clinton and his wife... well that was answered both in government, by the failure of the impeachment, and by the people, in Clinton's continued popularity.
I thought it was easier just to say blowjob that type all that out.
Whatever the reasons are... He. Lied. Under. Oath. Thusly, he was truly impeached, but not removed from office as they're two separate events.
This my shock your very soul, but during the Clinton years and during the bruhah of the trial, I was on Clinton's side.... until he 'fessed that he lied.
Glad you feel that way... that's why I feel like it's important to have sunlight on the Media's coverages to keep them honest... because, really... the Media does most of the watching on our politicians to keep them honest.
Oh, I think its very important to discuss the ways the media works and how the stories they select have a real and meaningful impact on political discourse.
Yep... hence my post!
But I believe very strongly that the 'liberal media' and 'media bias' drumbeats simply aren't true, and actually distract from how the media really does report these matters.
And I strongly disagree with you.
Say what? See... that's why *I* question how you get US news in the land of Oz...
Pat Tillman was ALL OVER THE fething NEWS and the media kept investigating (as it should). It's NOT a forgotten story... gak, we hear it all the time whenever the St. Louis Rams play the fething Arizona Cardinals (Tillman's old team).
All over the news? You gonna claims it's gotten the coverage Benghazi got? Seriously?
Yep. Tillman was national and local news here. Another reason why I question the American news exposure you get in Oz. We're SATURATED with it here.... o.O
Maybe I'm totally wrong... let's ask some ex-pats if they've notice anything different...
@MGS @Dreadclaw
Am I way off base? (re: US media exposure)
Automatically Appended Next Post: And Seb... so what does the WH do when accusations are flying about an attempted cover up and a disinterested, collusive media? It’s holding an off-the-record briefing?
whembly wrote: Maybe I'm totally wrong... let's ask some ex-pats if they've notice anything different...
@MGS @Dreadclaw
Am I way off base? (re: US media exposure)
This is my own personal opinion on the US and how it differs from other reporting.
The TV news media is a lot different to what I'd see in N.I. There it was mainly BBC and Channel 4 news that I watched. I'd read the Guardian, which is a really left leaning rag which is getting worse by the day, because it was one of the few sites not blocked at work. The Guardian is pretty much anti-American, and anti-Israel. It had columns posted by someone accused of spying during the Cold War, members of terrorist organisation, and they think that Pravda and Electronic Intifada are reliable sources. Their comment section is a hive of bile for the most part. The BBC is pretty neutral for the most part, which Channel 4 was left of center.Usually both their correspondents would be from the UK, but living in the US. They did a decent job of explaining global ramifications of events.
Over here though there is a lot of difference in the media and its reporting. You can usually see an author's bias early in the articles they publish, shows they host etc. I remember watching Fox News and MSNBC during the election run up and it was a different experience listening to them call out their counterparts and their views live on air, as well as that sometimes I was wondering if I was watching the same broadcast that they were based on their coverage. Given the recent coverage of gun ownership and immigration it does look more apparent that there is a bias there - emotion over facts, incorrect information surfacing at a rate which is shocking for professional journalists, hiring of aides from the current administration being largely brushed under the carpet etc.
One thing that is consistent on both sides of the pond though is that Piers Morgan should not be employed
2013/05/10 21:37:45
Subject: Juxtaposition of the Arias trial vs. the Benghazi hearing
Rented Tritium wrote: We can all agree that the Arias trial is stupid and isn't really national news, though, right?
Yes. I have yet to read a single news story on her, and in fact only tangentially even know who this is because of the news being on in the break room at work when I'm getting a soda or tea or whatever. But, White Woman in trouble always rates.
Valion wrote: A State Department spokeswoman, Victoria Nuland, specifically asked the CIA to delete a paragraph citing prior attacks that could’ve been warning signs because that “could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either?” according to email reviewed by ABC.
I'll take "politically driven motivations only a fool would actually document in writing" for 500, Alex.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: One thing that is consistent on both sides of the pond though is that Piers Morgan should not be employed
This, this, so very much this.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/05/10 21:41:35
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
2013/05/10 22:11:21
Subject: Juxtaposition of the Arias trial vs. the Benghazi hearing
I tried watching clips of his show on youtube and they were just bad. Not even bad-but-good-enough-for-a-laugh, but watching someone with entitlement issues spit his dummy out when he wasn't getting his way like a spoiled, petulant child. Every question was loaded, and people shouted down when trying to make a point he disagreed with.
Some of his exploits include;
Morgan was fired as Editor of the Daily Mirror on 14 May 2004 after authorising the newspaper's publication of photographs allegedly showing Iraqi prisoners being abused by British Army soldiers from the Queen's Lancashire Regiment.[16] Within days the photographs were shown to be crude fakes. Under the headline "SORRY.. WE WERE HOAXED", the Mirror responded that it had fallen victim to a "calculated and malicious hoax" and apologised for the publication of the photographs
In 2007 Morgan was filmed falling off a Segway, breaking three ribs. Simon Cowell and others made much of Morgan's previous comment in 2003, in the Daily Mail, after former U.S. President George W. Bush fell off a Segway, that "You'd have to be an idiot to fall off, wouldn't you, Mr. President?
Morgan appeared as a guest on the satirical news quiz Have I Got News for You in an episode transmitted on 24 May 1996.[49] In it, show regular Ian Hislop accused Morgan of having him followed and having his house watched. The conflict escalated and at one point the host, Angus Deayton, asked if they wished to go outside and have a fight. Later on, guest panellist Clive Anderson confronted Morgan commenting "the last time I was rude to you, you sent photographers to my doorstep the next day", to which Piers Morgan retorted, "You won't see them this time." The audience responded loudly in favour of Hislop.[50] "'We're about to start exposing the moon-faced midget'", Morgan was quoted as saying in 2002, to which Hislop responded "'all he's been offering for information about my private life is a £50 reward. My friends think that's not nearly enough.'"[51]
In 2007, Hislop chose Morgan as one of his pet hates on Room 101.[52][53] In doing so, Hislop spoke of the history of animosity between himself and Morgan and revealed that after their exchange on Have I Got News For You (which was shown as a clip), Morgan's reporters were tasked with trying to get gossip on Hislop's private life (including phoning acquaintances of Hislop), and photographers were sent in case Hislop did anything untoward or embarrassing while in their presence. Neither the reporters nor the photographers succeeded. Hislop also revealed that Morgan had attempted to quell the feud in an article in The Mail On Sunday, saying, "The war is over. I'm officially calling an end to hostilities, at least from my end. I'm sure it won't stop him carrying on his 'Piers Moron' stuff."[54] Hislop, who had been engaged in work on a First World War documentary at the time, responded by asking "Is that an armistice or an unconditional surrender?" Although the show's host Paul Merton agreed to put Morgan into Room 101, he was comically rejected as being "too toxic", even for Room 101
In October 2003, journalist and television personality Jeremy Clarkson reportedly emptied a glass of water over Morgan during the last flight of Concorde.[56] In March 2004, at the British Press Awards, Clarkson punched Morgan three times in a clash over The Mirror's coverage of his private life, and accusations that Clarkson did not write for his column in The Sun himself.[56] Morgan reported on a rapprochement with Clarkson in the epilogue of his book, Don't You Know Who I Am?.
whembly wrote: Responding your response, here, I'll help:
I think you've got a really strange idea of how much of a smoking gun one whistleblower is. I mean, we all see the movies where the brave witness takes to the stand in the last act and the case is won, but in reality these people are just yet another person brought before the committee, and they give a bunch of answers that don't in and of themselves prove anything, requiring us to have people spend months working over testimony and evidence to give a best judgement call on what really happened.
It's why the invasion of Iraq, which again was a much bigger deal than this, basically just petered out over time.
You missed the point. o.O
No, I just made a point you didn't like. You wanted to bring guns in to a conversation about narrative that already included terrorism, without realising that US narrative on guns looks completely flying rodent gak insane when you put it up next to terrorism.
And yes, the 3 kidnapped women ARE big news... that's why I used that example. Gosnell? Not so much... why?
That's a fair question, and honestly I think it is a significant blindspot in media coverage. Far more than Benghazi.
Seb...it's been my assertation that Benghazi is NOT trivial.
Yeah, I know dude. And my point, made quite a few times now, is that thinking the media just covers matters based on their importance, except when liberal bias enters the frame is just wrong.
The media covers stuff based on whether there is exciting footage to show, whether the subject is exciting or thrilling to the audience, whether it can be explained in the 30 seconds to a minute of the story's run time and all kinds of other stuff.
Whether something is actually of national importance to the people... well just think about the weeks of coverage given to Michael Jackson's death.
Whatever the reasons are... He. Lied. Under. Oath. Thusly, he was truly impeached, but not removed from office as they're two separate events.
And like I said, for some people 'he lied under oath' is the beginning and the end of the matter, while for others the issue on which he was being questioned was ridiculous, and makes the whole issue just disappear.
And he was impeached by the House of Reps, but his trial rejected by the Senate. I don't know the technical terms as to whether that makes him impeached or not, but instead just re-read my summary of the events and tell me if I got anything wrong.
This my shock your very soul, but during the Clinton years and during the bruhah of the trial, I was on Clinton's side.... until he 'fessed that he lied.
And it may shock you, but for a time I felt that a lie under oath was a lie under oath. But then I got older, lived, and learned a lot more about what happened.
And I strongly disagree with you.
And you're wrong.
Yep. Tillman was national and local news here. Another reason why I question the American news exposure you get in Oz. We're SATURATED with it here.... o.O
Seriously? You're seriously telling me you think Tillman got more coverage in total than Benghazi? Seriously, and for true? Because maybe I saw maybe two pieces on Tillman in the whole time it was coming out, and I see something on Benghazi like every week... and I was following US news a lot more closely back then.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2013/05/13 11:20:52
Subject: Juxtaposition of the Arias trial vs. the Benghazi hearing
“This is one liberal Democrat who said the intervention was wrong,” Kucinich began, blasting the Obama administration for helping to take out Qaddafi. “And what the attack on the consulate brings up, Chris, is the failure of the Benghazi policy from the beginning. And that’s why they had to call it a street demonstration instead of an attack because on the eve of an election that brought in a whole new narrative about foreign policy, about dealing with terrorism, and about the consequences that led to four deaths of people who served the United States.”
Fox host Chris Wallace asked, “So do you think those talking points were politically scrubbed?”
“Of course they were,” said Kucinich. “Come on, are you kidding? This is one of those things that you have to realize were in the circumference of an election, and when you get on the eve of an election, everything becomes political. Unfortunately, Americans died and people who believe in America who put their lives on the line, they weren’t provided with protection. they weren’t provided with a response. They and their families had a right to make sure they were defended. Look, we went into Benghazi under the assumption that somehow there was going to be a massacre in Benghazi. So we went there to protect the Libyan people. We couldn’t go in to protect our own Americans who were serving there? I’m offended by this, and there has to be real answers to the questions being raised.”
At least the IRS is getting scrutiny by the Media... I seem to remember that this started with that "Joe the Plummer" incident.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2013/05/13 15:49:37
Subject: Juxtaposition of the Arias trial vs. the Benghazi hearing
Chongara wrote: Of course the media is biased, they broadcast things other than m own opinion.
Good one my man.
Must say though Whembly gets results. Posts this thread, three days later BLAM! Its all over the airwaves.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2013/05/13 16:18:47
Subject: Juxtaposition of the Arias trial vs. the Benghazi hearing
Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) said the fatal attacks on American diplomats in Benghazi could lead to President Barack Obama’s impeachment during a radio interview Friday.
“People may be starting to use the I-word before too long,” Inhofe said during a discussion of Benghazi on “The Rusty Humphries Show.”
Continue Reading Text Size
-+resetMcCain: Benghazi 'a cover-up'
Latest on POLITICO
Bloomberg bids farewell to Walters
Poll: GOP angriest about Benghazi
Baucus pledges Senate IRS hearings
Schiff: Broad probe of IRS
Rubio: Obama should fire IRS chief
Tea party groups want IRS inquiry
“I-word meaning ‘impeachment?’” Humphries asked.
“Yeah,” Inhofe said.
Humphries pointed out it was unlikely the Senate would vote to convict Obama even if the GOP-controlled House voted to impeach.
(Also on POLITICO: Collins: No impeachment over Benghazi)
“I understand that,” he said. “I’m not talking about it now. This is something that could last until after the 2014 elections. This is not a short story. … This is clearly an orchestrated cover-up.”
Republicans have been musing, with varying degrees of seriousness, about impeaching Obama almost since his first day in office. Most recently, Reps. Steve Stockman (R-Texas) and Trey Radel (R-Fla.) suggested impeaching the president over his use of executive actions to advance gun control.
Inhofe zeroed in on U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice’s appearance on the Sunday political talk shows following the attack as the impetus for the scandal. During those appearances, Rice acknowledged the presence of “extremists” at the diplomatic compound in Libya, but fingered a poorly made and offensive viral video as the root of the violence.
“They knew that it was a cover-up at that time, the time that it happened,” Inhofe said. “To send Susan Rice out to lie to the American people is one thing that’s going to go down in history, that’s never going to be forgotten.”
Four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, died in the attack. Republicans have spent the past week building up Benghazi as a scandal after the issue faded from the scene in recent months. The House Oversight Committee held a emotional and lengthy hearing on Wednesday and documents outlining the development of Rice’s talking points were leaked to ABC on Friday morning.
(WATCH: Hicks recounts Chris Stevens phone call)
Like other Republicans in recent days, Inhofe has taken direct aim at then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, claiming her famous clash with Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) at hearing in January was essentially staged by the former First Lady.
“I think that she has gotten by with that sort of forceful attitude,” he said. “It’s something you’re not really accustomed to or hear from women as much as you do men. And she came out so forcefully, and you could tell that it was orchestrated at the time that she said it.”
This old playbook?
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
2013/05/13 17:03:34
Subject: Re:Juxtaposition of the Arias trial vs. the Benghazi hearing
Considering lots of people were using "impeach" as a result of their perceptions of Obama:
Being atheist
Being a Muslim
Not being Christian
Not being Christian enough
Being Kenyan
Not being Kenyan but definitely maybe not being American
Not being white (thanks YouTube)
Being half white (thanks again, YouTube)
Being a communist
Being a fascist
Being the antichrist
Working for the Illuminati
Working for the Lizard People
etc. etc.
Honestly, I think at this point whenever a Republican suggests a Democrat be impeached, it carries about as much weight as someone's crazy old grandparent suggesting someone do something about all the *insert arbitrary outdated racial noun here*.
2013/05/13 17:28:20
Subject: Re:Juxtaposition of the Arias trial vs. the Benghazi hearing
Let me reiterate in my original 
