Liberal media spin Benghazi scandal to protect Team Obama

[houndawg]

Huffpo is not the middle.


Sent from the center of the universe.

I didn't say they are. Huff Post is far left. I'd have to read their crap to find something in the middle.

Type slower, you're confusing 'Z.

[CID1990]

Huffpo is not the middle.


Sent from the center of the universe.

I didn't say they are. Huff Post is far left. I'd have to read their crap to find something in the middle.

Sorry, your word "middle" in parentheses would lead a reasonable person to think you meant Huffpo is in the middle. Please try to write your silly ideas more clearly.


Sent from the center of the universe.

[AZGrizFan]

I didn't say they are. Huff Post is far left. I'd have to read their crap to find something in the middle.

Sorry, your word "middle" in parentheses would lead a reasonable person to think you meant Huffpo is in the middle. Please try to write your silly ideas more clearly.


Sent from the center of the universe.

And houndawg think's I'M the one who's confused.

[BlueHen86]

Crying about the liberal media rings hollow. Just like we get the elected officials that we deserve, we get the media that we deserve. The conservative media is just as bad, and just as accessible for those who want to watch it as the liberal media is for the people who want to watch it.

People like to be told what they want to hear, the media is more than happy to oblige. The sad result is that the media can't be trusted. Both parties know this and play it accordingly.

[BlueHen86]

Yes, he does. He has his bias but he has no hesitation to call out Obama or any Democrat.

It's nowhere near "equal".

Not equal, Stewart clearly leans lib. I've never done a study on Stewart, or tracked time he spends on subjects, but my gut tells me that his favorite target is Fox News and his second favorite target is CNN.

He seems to target Fox for being biased, and CNN for being incompetent. I think he is right on both counts.

[kalm]

It's nowhere near "equal".

Not equal, Stewart clearly leans lib. I've never done a study on Stewart, or tracked time he spends on subjects, but my gut tells me that his favorite target is Fox News and his second favorite target is CNN.

He seems to target Fox for being biased, and CNN for being incompetent. I think he is right on both counts.

He's infotainment just like they are and beating them at both information and entertainment.

Remember 89, Daily Show viewers are not quite as dumb as Fox or CNN viewers.

[BDKJMU]

They're starting to come around . The reporter at CBS. And now ABC:

"Benghazi Talking Points Had 12 Versions

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

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

White House emails reviewed by ABC News suggest the edits were made with extensive input from the State Department. The edits included requests from the State Department that references to the Al Qaeda-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia be deleted as well references to CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack.
That would appear to directly contradict what White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said about the talking points in November........."
http://abcnews.go.com/m/blogEntry?id=19 ... 6pmnc%3D02" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Jay Carney is such a propagandist. May as well call him Baghdad Bob.

[BDKJMU]

"CIA director David Petraeus was surprised when he read the freshly rewritten talking points an aide had emailed him in the early afternoon of Saturday, September 15. One day earlier, analysts with the CIA’s Office of Terrorism Analysis had drafted a set of unclassified talking points policymakers could use to discuss the attacks in Benghazi, Libya. But this new version​—​produced with input from senior Obama administration policymakers​—​was a shadow of the original.

The original CIA talking points had been blunt: The assault on U.S. facilities in Benghazi was a terrorist attack conducted by a large group of Islamic extremists, including some with ties to al Qaeda.

These were strong claims. The CIA usually qualifies its assessments, providing policymakers a sense of whether the conclusions of its analysis are offered with “high confidence,” “moderate confidence,” or “low confidence.” That first draft signaled confidence, even certainty: “We do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda participated in the attack.”

There was good reason for this conviction. Within 24 hours of the attack, the U.S. government had intercepted communications between two al Qaeda-linked terrorists discussing the attacks in Benghazi. One of the jihadists, a member of Ansar al Sharia, reported to the other that he had participated in the assault on the U.S. diplomatic post. Solid evidence. And there was more. Later that same day, the CIA station chief in Libya had sent a memo back to Washington, reporting that eyewitnesses to the attack said the participants were known jihadists, with ties to al Qaeda.

Before circulating the talking points to administration policymakers in the early evening of Friday, September 14, CIA officials changed “Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda” to simply “Islamic extremists.” But elsewhere, they added new contextual references to radical Islamists. They noted that initial press reports pointed to Ansar al Sharia involvement and added a bullet point highlighting the fact that the agency had warned about another potential attack on U.S. diplomatic facilities in the region. “On 10 September we warned of social media reports calling for a demonstration in front of the [Cairo] Embassy and that jihadists were threatening to break into the Embassy.” All told, the draft of the CIA talking points that was sent to top Obama administration officials that Friday evening included more than a half-dozen references to the enemy​—​al Qaeda, Ansar al Sharia, jihadists, Islamic extremists, and so on.

The version Petraeus received in his inbox Saturday, however, had none. The only remaining allusion to the bad guys noted that “extremists” might have participated in “violent demonstrations.”

In an email at 2:44 p.m. to Chip Walter, head of the CIA’s legislative affairs office, Petraeus expressed frustration at the new, scrubbed talking points, noting that they had been stripped of much of the content his agency had provided. Petraeus noted with evident disappointment that the policymakers had even taken out the line about the CIA’s warning on Cairo. The CIA director, long regarded as a team player, declined to pick a fight with the White House and seemed resigned to the propagation of the administration’s preferred narrative. The final decisions about what to tell the American people rest with the national security staff, he reminded Walter, and not with the CIA.

This candid, real-time assessment from then-CIA director Petraeus offers a glimpse of what many intelligence officials were saying privately as top Obama officials set aside the truth about Benghazi and spun a fanciful tale about a movie that never mattered and a demonstration that never happened.

“The YouTube video was a nonevent in Libya,” said Gregory Hicks, a 22-year veteran diplomat and deputy chief of mission at the U.S. embassy in Tripoli at the time of the attacks, in testimony before the House Oversight and Reform Committee on May 8. “The only report that our mission made through every channel was that there had been an attack on a consulate . . . no protest.”
So how did Jay Carney, Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and others come to sell the country a spurious narrative about a movie and a protest?......."
http://m.weeklystandard.com/articles/be ... tml?page=2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That's just the 1st page. Next 2 pages talk about the e-mails, meetings and players involved.

[89Hen]

Not equal, Stewart clearly leans lib. I've never done a study on Stewart, or tracked time he spends on subjects, but my gut tells me that his favorite target is Fox News and his second favorite target is CNN.

He seems to target Fox for being biased, and CNN for being incompetent. I think he is right on both counts.

He's infotainment just like they are and beating them at both information and entertainment.

Remember 89, Daily Show viewers are not quite as dumb as Fox or CNN viewers.

Wanna bet on the quite as dumb part? Even you think he is giving better "information".

[Bronco]

-

The brother of a top Obama administration official is also the president of CBS News

CNN deputy bureau chief, Virginia Moseley, is married to Hillary Clinton’s deputy, Tom Nides

"CBS News President David Rhodes and ABC News President Ben Sherwood, both of them have siblings that not only work at the White House, that not only work for President Obama, but they work at the NSC on foreign policy issues directly related to Benghazi."

Jay Carney is married to Claire Shipman, senior correspondent for ABC's Good Morning America.


Newsbusters ^

[houndawg]

"CIA director David Petraeus was surprised when he read the freshly rewritten talking points an aide had emailed him in the early afternoon of Saturday, September 15. One day earlier, analysts with the CIA’s Office of Terrorism Analysis had drafted a set of unclassified talking points policymakers could use to discuss the attacks in Benghazi, Libya. But this new version​—​produced with input from senior Obama administration policymakers​—​was a shadow of the original.

The original CIA talking points had been blunt: The assault on U.S. facilities in Benghazi was a terrorist attack conducted by a large group of Islamic extremists, including some with ties to al Qaeda.

These were strong claims. The CIA usually qualifies its assessments, providing policymakers a sense of whether the conclusions of its analysis are offered with “high confidence,” “moderate confidence,” or “low confidence.” That first draft signaled confidence, even certainty: “We do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda participated in the attack.”

There was good reason for this conviction. Within 24 hours of the attack, the U.S. government had intercepted communications between two al Qaeda-linked terrorists discussing the attacks in Benghazi. One of the jihadists, a member of Ansar al Sharia, reported to the other that he had participated in the assault on the U.S. diplomatic post. Solid evidence. And there was more. Later that same day, the CIA station chief in Libya had sent a memo back to Washington, reporting that eyewitnesses to the attack said the participants were known jihadists, with ties to al Qaeda.

Before circulating the talking points to administration policymakers in the early evening of Friday, September 14, CIA officials changed “Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda” to simply “Islamic extremists.” But elsewhere, they added new contextual references to radical Islamists. They noted that initial press reports pointed to Ansar al Sharia involvement and added a bullet point highlighting the fact that the agency had warned about another potential attack on U.S. diplomatic facilities in the region. “On 10 September we warned of social media reports calling for a demonstration in front of the [Cairo] Embassy and that jihadists were threatening to break into the Embassy.” All told, the draft of the CIA talking points that was sent to top Obama administration officials that Friday evening included more than a half-dozen references to the enemy​—​al Qaeda, Ansar al Sharia, jihadists, Islamic extremists, and so on.

The version Petraeus received in his inbox Saturday, however, had none. The only remaining allusion to the bad guys noted that “extremists” might have participated in “violent demonstrations.”

In an email at 2:44 p.m. to Chip Walter, head of the CIA’s legislative affairs office, Petraeus expressed frustration at the new, scrubbed talking points, noting that they had been stripped of much of the content his agency had provided. Petraeus noted with evident disappointment that the policymakers had even taken out the line about the CIA’s warning on Cairo. The CIA director, long regarded as a team player, declined to pick a fight with the White House and seemed resigned to the propagation of the administration’s preferred narrative. The final decisions about what to tell the American people rest with the national security staff, he reminded Walter, and not with the CIA.

This candid, real-time assessment from then-CIA director Petraeus offers a glimpse of what many intelligence officials were saying privately as top Obama officials set aside the truth about Benghazi and spun a fanciful tale about a movie that never mattered and a demonstration that never happened.

“The YouTube video was a nonevent in Libya,” said Gregory Hicks, a 22-year veteran diplomat and deputy chief of mission at the U.S. embassy in Tripoli at the time of the attacks, in testimony before the House Oversight and Reform Committee on May 8. “The only report that our mission made through every channel was that there had been an attack on a consulate . . . no protest.”
So how did Jay Carney, Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and others come to sell the country a spurious narrative about a movie and a protest?......."
http://m.weeklystandard.com/articles/be ... tml?page=2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That's just the 1st page. Next 2 pages talk about the e-mails, meetings and players involved.

Now suddenly the CIA is a bunch of Einsteins? I seem to recall this same crowd bleating about their incompetence and inability to do anything right when the CIA told us Valerie Plame was under cover at the time she was outed by the White House.


And everybody seems to have forgotten the part about the military saying "no can do" when apprised of the situation.

[Bronco]

-
It's a shame that Hillary wasn't under oath like Libby was when she gave her testimony and lied.

Wonder how she negotiated that?

[CID1990]

Maureen Dowd:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/12/opini ... .html?_r=1&" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Sent from the center of the universe.

[kalm]

Maureen Dowd:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/12/opini ... .html?_r=1&" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Sent from the center of the universe.

Ah fuck it...they're all pricks.

[CID1990]

Maureen Dowd:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/12/opini ... .html?_r=1&" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Sent from the center of the universe.

Ah **** it...they're all pricks.

She's carried a lot of water for both Hillary and Obama in the past. That's the danger here- the administration will always be able to count on MSNBC for advocacy, but if they start losing the NYT and WaPo columnists it is going to be rough sailing. Maybe they should dust off the War on Wimmin thingy - give Maureen and Co some red meat.


Sent from the center of the universe.

[kalm]

Ah **** it...they're all pricks.

She's carried a lot of water for both Hillary and Obama in the past. That's the danger here- the administration will always be able to count on MSNBC for advocacy, but if they start losing the NYT and WaPo columnists it is going to be rough sailing. Maybe they should dust off the War on Wimmin thingy - give Maureen and Co some red meat.


Sent from the center of the universe.

You need to retire and become a political op.

[CID1990]

She's carried a lot of water for both Hillary and Obama in the past. That's the danger here- the administration will always be able to count on MSNBC for advocacy, but if they start losing the NYT and WaPo columnists it is going to be rough sailing. Maybe they should dust off the War on Wimmin thingy - give Maureen and Co some red meat.


Sent from the center of the universe.

You need to retire and get into become and become a political op.

I would be horrible at it. I have problems with giving blind loyalty to politicians of any color.


Sent from the center of the universe.

[kalm]

You need to retire and get into become and become a political op.

I would be horrible at it. I have problems with giving blind loyalty to politicians of any color.


Sent from the center of the universe.

[BDKJMU]

WHO IS LT. COL. GIBSON AND DOES HE HOLD THE KEY TO WHO GAVE STAND DOWN ORDER IN BENGHAZI?
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05 ... -benghazi/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Ibanez]

I didn't say they are. Huff Post is far left. I'd have to read their crap to find something in the middle.

Sorry, your word "middle" in parentheses would lead a reasonable person to think you meant Huffpo is in the middle. Please try to write your silly ideas more clearly.


Sent from the center of the universe.

Silly ideas? Don't be so condescending.

[houndawg]

WHO IS LT. COL. GIBSON AND DOES HE HOLD THE KEY TO WHO GAVE STAND DOWN ORDER IN BENGHAZI?
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05 ... -benghazi/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Is he the guy that doctored the emails?

[CID1990]

WHO IS LT. COL. GIBSON AND DOES HE HOLD THE KEY TO WHO GAVE STAND DOWN ORDER IN BENGHAZI?
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05 ... -benghazi/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Is he the guy that doctored the emails?

You really ARE onto the WH talking points.

This is the newest squirm by the administration and was completely debunked with about 30 minutes of it being floated. The email you are talking about was quoted by a reporter who had it read to him rather than reading it directly, and the change was not material.

Here's the "doctored" part:

"We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don’t want to undermine the FBI investigation."

This is the actual sentence:

"We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation."


You really need to try to keep up, HD. You might be in the 1% that is still buying the White House spin.


Sent from the center of the universe.

[houndawg]

Is he the guy that doctored the emails?

You really ARE onto the WH talking points.

This is the newest squirm by the administration and was completely debunked with about 30 minutes of it being floated. The email you are talking about was quoted by a reporter who had it read to him rather than reading it directly, and the change was not material.

Here's the "doctored" part:

"We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don’t want to undermine the FBI investigation."

This is the actual sentence:

"We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation."


You really need to try to keep up, HD. You might be in the 1% that is still buying the White House spin.


Sent from the center of the universe.

So where is the cover up we were promised?


If those half wits had a lick of sense they'd focus on the AP scandal, where the biggest attack on what America is supposed to be is happening. Stupid conk fvcks are such intuitive fascists that they're puzzled as what all the fuss is really about.

[kalm]

You really ARE onto the WH talking points.

This is the newest squirm by the administration and was completely debunked with about 30 minutes of it being floated. The email you are talking about was quoted by a reporter who had it read to him rather than reading it directly, and the change was not material.

Here's the "doctored" part:

"We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don’t want to undermine the FBI investigation."

This is the actual sentence:

"We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation."


You really need to try to keep up, HD. You might be in the 1% that is still buying the White House spin.


Sent from the center of the universe.

So where is the cover up we were promised?


If those half wits had a lick of sense they'd focus on the AP scandal, where the biggest attack on what America is supposed to be is happening. Stupid conk fvcks are such intuitive fascists that they're puzzled as what all the fuss is really about.

[CID1990]

You really ARE onto the WH talking points.

This is the newest squirm by the administration and was completely debunked with about 30 minutes of it being floated. The email you are talking about was quoted by a reporter who had it read to him rather than reading it directly, and the change was not material.

Here's the "doctored" part:

"We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don’t want to undermine the FBI investigation."

This is the actual sentence:

"We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation."


You really need to try to keep up, HD. You might be in the 1% that is still buying the White House spin.


Sent from the center of the universe.

So where is the cover up we were promised?


If those half wits had a lick of sense they'd focus on the AP scandal, where the biggest attack on what America is supposed to be is happening. Stupid conk fvcks are such intuitive fascists that they're puzzled as what all the fuss is really about.

Dude you ARE bitter. You're blaming Republicans when all of this is completely self inflicted. The last time the country saw this kind of ineptitude was when Warren Harding was in office. These scandals are all the same thing. This administration is 100% political and 100% thin skinned. If they weren't, there wouldn't be anything for those big bad Republicans to go after.

The coverup was in Benghazi. The rest is just fluff because technically there were no laws broken (that we know of). In fact, the AP and IRS issues are doing the White House a favor. Don't worry- when they send a subpoena to Cheryl Mills you'll get your coverup.

Good people have been scapegoated over Benghazi but they screwed with the wrong guy. Turns out he's decided not to retire. Stay tuned.



Sent from the center of the universe.