Mr. Speaker! We Need To Get Back To Benghazi

[garbage can]

Media Matters:

The Already Asked-And-Answered Questions Fox Wants To Know From The Benghazi Select Committee

Research May 7, 2014 4:03 PM EDT ››› OLIVIA KITTEL, MICHELLE LEUNG, & SAMANTHA WYATT

:

Fox news presents an opposing view from the MSM. The Libs appear to not want to hear opposing views.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Fox news presents an opposing view from the MSM. The Libs appear to not want to hear opposing views.

Just like The GOP's new investigatory "pitbull", they're asking questions that have already been answered, multiple times. They just don't like the answers.

FauxNews presents an alternate reality, not an alternate view.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Fox news presents an opposing view from the MSM. The Libs appear to not want to hear opposing views.

No, Fox is part of the MSM; Fox presents an opposing view from the MSR. ("R" stands for "reality.")

 

[miles]

The Libs appear to not want to hear opposing views.

Their Lord and Savior Obama can never, ever do anything wrong. Are they gullible or just plain dumb?

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

helpful of Media Matters to give you your talking points about the talking points in blue so you will be prepared to rebut so skillfully.

"ANSWER: There Were No Efforts To Alter Talking Points For Political Purposes"

Yep...that WAS the lie they have clung to. The Email none of you want to read clearly shows who, when, and importantly the exact reasoning behind the political purpose for which it was changed.

"To underscore (in this context they mean to create out of whole cloth a new narrative) that these protests (it wasn't a protest) are rooted in an internet video (they weren't...not even the one in Cario for which the State Department issued a preemptive apology, and not a broader failure of policy."


Asked and answered...good one. Too bad Cap Weinberger and Tricky Dick didn't think of that answer.

MAYBE they don't like it when the "answers" so skillfully obtained by the Democratic Senates white-wash committee obtained are directly contradicted by with-held documents.

Keep spinning...it won't matter when the real answers come out.

-thanks for playing.

Bottom line is that the GOP is trying to exploit a tragedy for political gain. In the process they will waste millions more in taxpayer funds, not to mention the hours upon hours of time that could be spent.. Oh I don't know, actually working on legislation.

The real answers?
They aren't interested in the truth. They're interested in how this can be exploited to their best advantage come November.

It’s time the GOP stopped using the four Americans killed in Benghazi to score political points and candidly told the American people that the new hearings are not about the victims or uncovering the “truth” but simply about advancing Republican political ambitions. They owe the victims of the attack at least that much.

If they were really interested in why the American Embassies abroad were lacking security they need only go look in the mirror. House Republicans cut the administration’s request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans’ proposed cuts to her department would be “detrimental to America’s national security” – a charge Republicans rejected.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Their Lord and Savior Obama can never, ever do anything wrong. Are they gullible or just plain dumb?

Shut the fuck up miles you fucking idiot.

 

[KingOrfeo]

From MSNBC:

Trey Gowdy’s embarrassing start

05/08/14 09:14 AM

By Steve Benen

On Tuesday, the House Republican leadership formally announced it’s chosen Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) to lead the latest in a series of Benghazi committee investigations. On Wednesday, Gowdy made a “telling slip.”

Asked by MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough about the possibility that his panel’s work would continue into the 2016 election campaign, Gowdy replied that “if an administration is slow-walking document production, I can’t end a trial simply because the defense won’t cooperate.”

A trial? And the Obama administration is the defense? So much for that “serious investigation” House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) promised; his new chairman intends to play prosecutor, proving the administration’s guilt to the jury – in this case, the public.

It was no small admission. Publicly, GOP leaders insist their election-year charade is actually a credible search for the facts, wherever they may lead. They’re going into this process, not on a partisan witch hunt, but as responsible public officials. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) assured reporters this week that this is going to be “a serious investigation.”

Except Gowdy accidentally told the truth on national television – he’s already convinced, before the process even starts, that the White House is guilty of wrongdoing, and the far-right congressman believes it’s his job to prosecute administration officials.

In other words, Gowdy effectively admitted that everything his own party is saying about the select committee is wrong.

Making matters considerably worse, the South Carolina Republican has not only prejudged the matter he hasn’t started investigating yet, he also seems badly confused about the basics of the Benghazi story itself.

Igor Bobic explained that Gowdy said this week he has three main questions: (1) Why was security lacking during the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks in the U.S.? (2) Why weren’t military units moving to support consulate personnel? (3) Why were references to “terrorist” and “attacks” edited out of the Obama administration’s talking points?

This is genuinely bizarre. Over the course of the last 20 months, the attacks in Benghazi have been thoroughly investigated, repeatedly, by a variety of entities. And as Bobic added, if Gowdy paid even casual attention to current events, he’d realize the answers to his questions are already readily available.

Gowdy has promised to bring a no-nonsense, “prosecutor’s zeal” to finding the answers and in examining the Obama administration’s handling of the attack. He has insisted he’s not interested in rehashing previous investigations by Congress or in “whether the appropriate questions were asked in the past.”

But the questions he’s asking now were asked in the past. And answered, too.

The congressman likely disagrees with those answers. But in his recent interviews, he hasn’t acknowledged that they exist.

If the congressman found himself struggling to keep up with the details shortly after the attack itself, it’d be easier to understand. But it’s been nearly two years – Gowdy has had plenty of time to get up to speed, especially if, as he claims, he’s taking these questions seriously.

Making matters slightly worse, Gowdy added on msnbc yesterday morning, in reference to developments in the region in the fall of 2012, “Well, how many people were harmed in the Middle East in that time period? The second goal or third goal of Ben Rhodes’ memo was to bring countries to justice for harming our citizens. What other country could they be talking about? I mean what else was being discussed after September 11, 2012 other than Benghazi?”

As Brian Beutler explained, Gowdy doesn’t seem to understand the basics of the matter he’s investigating: “t’s frightening how likely it is that the chairman of the Benghazi committee isn’t intentionally misleading here, but has actually written the non-Benghazi events of September 11, 2012 and the days thereafter out of existence in his mind.”

Michael Morell, the former acting deputy director of the CIA, told Jake Tapper yesterday that Gowdy also “has a number of his facts wrong.”

What a polite way of putting it.

 

[unregistered]

 

[garbage can]

No, Fox is part of the MSM; Fox presents an opposing view from the MSR. ("R" stands for "reality.")

Many people agree with you.

 

[unregistered]

 

[dan_c00000]

28 pages of vette fail. That's awesome.

Folks, if you follow the news, you know that Benghazi has been blowing up again because of a scandalous new memo linking the Obama administration directly to things said by members of the Obama administration. And Fox News's The Five's the Eric Bolling has an ironclad explanation for why they did whatever it is we're accusing them of having done after the Benghazi attack.

5/5/2014:
ERIC BOLLING: There's one more piece to this. Don't forget that this was prior — prior — to Osama bin Laden being taken down, and the thought was, and the discussion was, is President Obama going into the re-election soft on terror or not? A lot of people were saying.... It was after?

DANA PERINO: Much after.

ERIC BOLLING: Was it after?

DANA PERINO: Yeah, yeah, yeah. A year.

ERIC BOLLING: My bad, I take it back.

GREG GUTFIELD: Next on The Five....

DANA PERINO: But a great point if it were true.
(hysterical audience laughter and applause)
Yes. That's undeniable. Yes, a great point and a fantastic new motto: Fox News, Fair & Balanced. A Great Point If It Were True.



(wild audience cheering and applause)

Still, I gotta give a wag of my finger to Dana Perino. Why did you correct him? Bolling was pulling a passionate heartfelt conspiracy theory straight out of his ass! You don't interrupt a man in mid-yank, that's rude! (audience laughter) Just say, "Great point." Because Bolling was right, up to a point. Obama not having caught bin Laden at the time of the Benghazi attack would have made him look soft on terror, if time happened in that order. (picture of clock winding backwards)

So Dana, come on, give your colleagues a break. They've been talking about Benghazi non-stop for 20 months. You can't expect them to remember the exact date that it happened. I mean, when was it anyway?



Oh, September 11th. Well, how on Earth are you supposed to never forget that?

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[garbage can]

Indoctrinated and dumb.

Indoctrinated....many believe the economy is doing well and joblessness in the new normal.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

It's time for Obama to start being what he was elected to be and order his people to tell the truth; but he can't because to do so would expose his own incompetence, his own inattentiveness, and the incompetence of his State Department and its leader. Worst of all he'd have to explain the presence of the adolescent Tommy Vietor, his former van driver, in the Situation Room when he wasn't.

You mean Tommy Vietor, the former spokesman for President Obama’s National Security Council? I can't imagine why he would be in the situation room.

Calling him the President's van driver is like referring to Warren Buffet as a Newspaper delivery boy. Also, he was hardly an "adolescent" at 32 (in 2012). I can see how you can make that mistake though, pushing your way slowly toward the century mark.

Tommy Vietor worked as a spokesman for President Barack Obama for nearly a decade. Vietor served as the President's National Security Spokesman from January of 2011 through March of 2013 where he was the media's primary contact on all foreign policy and national security issues. From January 2009 through January 2011, Vietor was an Assistant White House Press Secretary responsible for foreign policy, education and labor issues.

Vietor joined Obama's senate campaign in 2004 and served as Obama's U.S. Senate spokesman. In 2007, during the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses, Vietor worked as the Iowa Press Secretary, and continued his work on the campaign as a rapid response specialist in the 2008 general election. Vietor is regularly tapped by national television and print outlets to serve as an analyst on foreign policy issues.

But enough about the "adolescent van driver"..

As the "right" reminded us constantly while former President Bush was on any of his 70+ trips to Crawford or record 1,020 days vacations, the President Doesn't need to be in the Situation Room to receive intelligence updates. When the attack was first briefed to him it was in the Oval Office and he was updated constantly. And during that briefing he told Tom Donilon and his Joint Chiefs and Sec Def to begin moving all military assets into the region. At least he didn't tell them "OK, you've covered your ass now." Amirite?

As I noted earlier, if the House Republicans really wanted to know why the embassy security was lacking, they need only look at the budgets they gave them to work with, and the warnings given by the Sec. of State as they passed those budgets, which they dismissed.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Media Mutters, the voice of George Soros and world socialism, it is a propaganda organ of the extreme left. It's foundation supported, not a citizen supported, activist organization. It has as much credibility as the People's World.

Media Matters for America:

Media Matters for America is a far-left wing hate group (funded by George Soros's Shadow Party) ...at least according to Bill O'Reilly. In actual fact very little of what Billo says is true (40% according to one Late Show host) and this is no exception (George Soros donated $1 million to Media Matters in 2010, which is his only connection to the organization[1]).

Media Matters is a liberal media watchdog, more concerned with combating conservative media bias. As such they are not so keen on Fox News and Bill O'Reilly's show. Since Soros' donation, Media Matters has concentrated less on the media in general and more on "crazy crap some wingnuts said on Fox." They famously produced the documentary Outfoxed which demonstrates the bias in Fox News.[2]

Media Matters also tracks and debunks pseudoscience favored by conservatives, including creationism,[3] global warming denialism,[4] and bogus claims about abortion.[5]

Media Matters is far from unbiased itself, as could be expected from an organization founded by David "Anita Hill is a Perjuring Lesbian" Brock.[6] One of their studies purportedly demonstrating conservative bias in newspapers due to conservatives dominating op-ed pages was criticized for weighting columnists syndicated in local rags the same as ones syndicated in major newspapers.[7]

In March of 2014, Media Matters launched Mythopedia, a sort of quick and dirty refutation of claims.[8]

Mythopedia

 

[KingOrfeo]

Indoctrinated....many believe the economy is doing well and joblessness in the new normal.

It is not doing well, it is doing better.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[KingOrfeo]

That bullshit notwithstanding, it is as I said it was.

Well, yes, except for everything you said it was.

 

[unregistered]

 

[KingOrfeo]

It is a foundation driven leftist propaganda organ.

It has little to do with Soros and nothing to do with "world socialism." As for funding:

MMfA started with the help of $2 million in donations from liberal philanthropists connected to the Democratic party. According to Byron York, additional funding came from MoveOn.org and the New Democrat Network.[16][17][18]

In 2004 MMfA received the endorsement of the Democracy Alliance, a partnership of wealthy and politically active donors. The Alliance itself does not fund any of its endorsees, but many wealthy Alliance members acted on the endorsement and donated directly to MMfA.[19][20][21] Media Matters as a matter of course has a policy of not comprehensively listing donors. Six years after the Alliance endorsed MMfA, financier George Soros—a founding and continuing member of the Alliance—announced in 2010 that he was donating $1 million to MMfA. Soros said: "Despite repeated assertions to the contrary by various Fox News commentators, I have not to date been a funder of Media Matters." Soros said concern over "recent evidence suggesting that the incendiary rhetoric of Fox News hosts may incite violence" had moved him to donate to MMfA, which thanked Soros for announcing his donation "quickly and transparently".[22]

Former chief of staff to president Bill Clinton John Podesta provided office space for Media Matters early in its formation at the Center for American Progress, a Democratic think tank that he had created in 2002.[23] Hillary Clinton advised Media Matters in its early stages out of a belief that progressives should follow conservatives in forming think tanks and advocacy groups to support their political goals.[23][24]

Media Matters hired numerous political professionals who had worked for Democratic politicians and for other progressive groups.[18][25] In 2004 article on Media Matters the National Review referred to MMfA staffers who had recently worked on the presidential campaigns of John Edwards and Wesley Clark, for Congressman Barney Frank, and for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.[18]

Would the picture be any different for its RW opposite numbers, Accuracy in Media or the Media Research Center? Are they "citizen supported" and not "foundation supported"?

 

[RjThoughts]

Where are the jobs?
Where are the funds to help our schools?
Where is the money to help the crumbling infrastructure?

BENGHAZI!!!