Benghazi...

[tlongII]

Denial about what? Maybe we could start if you tell me what exactly it is you are concerned about. Maybe then I could come around to your point of view. I just need the facts.

The facts are simple. The administration knew a terrorist attack was occurring and they did nothing about it. Afterwards they lied about it. Is that clear enough for you?

[DMX7]

#MediaCoverUP

#ScandalCondom

[Th'Pusher]

Obama's Press Sec took a select group of media personnel and spoke to them off the record, which all the members have kept up.
The media's purpose is to sell their brand of news. Normally certain stories sell better than others. Even if something is not a big story-making it one will sell more of your product. For some reason the selected group of reporters avoided that inherit interest. I have no idea why.

What is your analysis? What is your take?

Incorrect and grade school analysis. Does not read his own link. The meetings were not off the record.

[spursncowboys]

Incorrect and grade school analysis. Does not read his own link. The meetings were not off the record.

So there was a video of what was said? Got it. Expand your grade school definition of what 'off the record' is. There must have been a reason why they were taking and spoken to off the record. My analysis was pretty basic. Not even staunch liberals have debated what I posted. Except of course the know all forum liberals.

[RandomGuy]

Obama's Press Sec took a select group of media personnel and spoke to them off the record, which all the members have kept up.
The media's purpose is to sell their brand of news. Normally certain stories sell better than others. Even if something is not a big story-making it one will sell more of your product. For some reason the selected group of reporters avoided that inherit interest. I have no idea why.

What is your analysis? What is your take?

My analysis is that some reporters were given some information. My take is that happens quite a lot in Washington, and that you didn't really read the linked article, or if you had, you didn't really do any critical thinking on what you read, and simply tuned out some rather important bits through what is called "confirmation bias". Conspiracy theorists do this all the time. It is the only way to keep up belief in irrational conspiracies.

Were the reporters told not to relay information? Could they quote the briefer?

[mouse]

Denial about what? I just need the facts.

trust me you need more than just facts, your missing the brain matter to try and understand them.

[ChumpDumper]

OK, mouse -- state all the facts as you understand them in your own words.

[spursncowboys]

My analysis is that some reporters were given some information. My take is that happens quite a lot in Washington, and that you didn't really read the linked article, or if you had, you didn't really do any critical thinking on what you read, and simply tuned out some rather important bits through what is called "confirmation bias". Conspiracy theorists do this all the time. It is the only way to keep up belief in irrational conspiracies.

Were the reporters told not to relay information? Could they quote the briefer?

What tidbit of information did I overlook? With your view that it happens quite alot in DC, is that just your view? All I stated were facts. Yours is nothing but koolaid sipping justifications and explanations.

[ChumpDumper]

Still trying to get what SnC is outraged about.

[RandomGuy]

Were the reporters told not to relay information? Could they quote the briefer?

What tidbit of information did I overlook? With your view that it happens quite alot in DC, is that just your view? All I stated were facts. Yours is nothing but koolaid sipping justifications and explanations.

You didn't really answer my questions. They are kind of important to understanding the linked story.

1. Were the reporters told not to relay information?
2. Could they quote the briefer?

[TeyshaBlue]

OK, mouse -- state all the facts as you understand them in your own words.

Good luck with that.

[boutons_deux]

Benghazi Isn’t Watergate. It's Whitewater

he House's Inspector Javert, Congressman Darrell Issa, held a hearing on the Benghazi attack yesterday at which a State Department official, Gregory Hicks, charged the administration with incompetence and worse. Mike Huckabee said that Obama will be impeached for Benghazi. Others suggest it'll badly damage Hillary Clinton's presidential prospects. Is anybody, Fox News included, going to be talking about this story six months from now?


It's not entirely clear that anyone is talking about it even now once you get beyond the Beltway and the GOP's Fox News base.

After all, they have been pounding it for eight months.

They believed that Benghazi was figuratively as well as literally the 9/11 of 2012, and that its fallout would usher Romney into the presidency.

In fact, it barely registered as a concern in any polls. Now they believe (in Lindsey Graham's characteristically understated judgment) that Benghazi is "every bit as damaging as Watergate," a gateway both to the president's impeachment and to a GOP victory over Hillary in 2016. Yet no one else does.

There are several reasons:

Clinton has taken responsibility for the systemic failures that occurred on her watch;

Republicans in Congress have not been able to deflect their own share of the blame, the budget cutbacks that shortchanged embassy and consulate security;

Susan Rice's endlessly parsed talking points notwithstanding, no one to the left of Sean Hannity seriously believes that the Obama White House was trying to cover up a terrorist attack.

But the main explanation for Benghazi's inability to catch fire with the public has to do with the American intelligence failure that led to the original 9/11 in which 3,000, not four, Americans were killed: Bush and Cheney's inability to heed such warning signs as the President's Daily Brief of August 6, 2001, "Bin Laden determined to strike in US."

Many of the same voices who are pounding Obama and Clinton on Benghazi - Graham, for instance - are the same ones who defended that lapse and then cheered on an Iraq War that drained resources from the battle against Al Qaeda and the search for Bin Laden.

They have no credibility.

And they are overselling the failures of Benghazi much as they oversold Saddam Hussein's nonexistent WMD. If you read the intricate conservative briefs vilifying Hillary in the aftermath of yesterday's testimony - check out this one - you can see that the Hillary-haters have not found another Watergate but another Whitewater. It should keep them very busy through 2016 even if the public continues to turn a deaf ear.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...watergate.html