• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

'We were wrong': CBS's Lara Logan apologizes for Benghazi report

AtlantaAdonis said:
Come on, man. Do you live among knuckle-dragging, reich wing, pickup-truck driving, Waffle-House-eatin, NASCAR-watchin' philistines like I do? They think Obama is a Kenyan and a muslim despite having no proof and republicans have been trying to manufacture scandals from every major setback. Even Clinton wasn't assaulted from every angle like this.

Just because Amerikkka can elect a black president doesn't mean Amerikkka is ready for a black president.
Click to expand...

Speaking as someone on the left side of the spectrum -- you're making us look bad.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Fear not. I have removed AA from this thread so that he will no longer be able to grace us with his worthless posts. Carry on.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but 60 Minutes hasn't found the the guys entire story was false or manufactured, but found an inconsistency in one part of his story that concerns his where abouts during the attack...

Do I have this correct?


Am I also correct in saying that 60 Minutes hasn't found any of his other statments to them in that interview to be "inconsistant", "manufactured" or "False"?


There are a couple of comments I'd like to add... First, I saw that interview, and I believe this guy isn't even an American citizen and if that's the case, why are people labeling this a "right wing" thing? Seems to me the guy is either lying or embellishing part or parts of his story to spice up his book for financial gain, but I'm not seeing anything to indicate any kind of political motive on his part... Is anyone else?

Another thing I noticed and find quite interesting, is that there are as many people, if not more, attacking Fox News on this thread, as they are the network that actually ran the story in the first place, CBS... That sure says something about the left around here, and that something well, it ain't too good.
 
Last edited:
CBS is apologizing for questioning the Obama administrations response to Ben Gahzi? Is that what we've come to? It's wrong to even look at anything that might reflect negatively on Obama? I'm surprised and a little saddened at just how little it people care about what occurred there. If it happened during the Bush administration, complete with the lies about the video being the reason, I'd still be pissed.
 
X Factor said:
CBS is apologizing for questioning the Obama administrations response to Ben Gahzi? Is that what we've come to? It's wrong to even look at anything that might reflect negatively on Obama? I'm surprised and a little saddened at just how little it people care about what occurred there. If it happened during the Bush administration, complete with the lies about the video being the reason, I'd still be pissed.
Click to expand...

I've got to agree with you X the whole Benghazi scandal has been one big coverup of pure arrogance, bad policy and incompetence. I think the State Department and intel agencies got it all wrong about what was happening at first thinking it was an unorganized demonstration. By the time they realized it was possibly an organized terror attack they still didn't react in a way to protect the Embassy or it's inhabitants because of a crappy policy to appease the locals in the regime change. Hillary's intense, emotional reaction and the unavailable witnesses tell more than any other excuses we've heard.
 
pbrauer said:
I'm sure there are many explanations for their behavior against President Obama, one of which could be racism, I'm just saying you need some good argument if your going to get anywhere.
Click to expand...
Many Republicans vowed not to cooperate with the president before he was sworn in.
 
The fact that there are several eyewitnesses who still dispute the adminstration's version of the events that led up to the deaths of 4 Americans will probably matter less thanks to Mr. Davies' lies. It also doesn't answer why this administration tried to blame the whole thing on a Coptic Christian who posted a unknown video on YouTube about Muhammad. That has been proved a lie by several credible sources. And if there is nothing to hide then why has the State Department and the White House continue to stonewall on releasing information? Come on, if there is nothing to hide why not release the information? Three CIA employees who were eyewitness to the attack are expected to testify in a closed-door session before the House Intelligence Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations during this coming week. Maybe it will help answer some questions because this administration has been less than forthright.
 
AtlantaAdonis said:
What other explanation can there be? The repiglicans are throwing any s*** they can get their hands on against the wall.
Click to expand...

Couldn't have anything to do with the economic results and poor recovery 4 years after the end of the recession, could it?

Couldn't have anything to do with the high number of discouraged workers, the reality that we have 143 million working Americans in October 2013 vs. 146.5 million in December 2007 when the recession began?

Couldn't have anything to do with the over 6.4 trillion added to the debt?

Couldn't have anything to do with the failed ACA program?

No, apparently results don't matter so couldn't it be the real racist is you, who votes for Obama simply because he is black?
 
X Factor said:
CBS is apologizing for questioning the Obama administrations response to Ben Gahzi? Is that what we've come to? It's wrong to even look at anything that might reflect negatively on Obama? I'm surprised and a little saddened at just how little it people care about what occurred there. If it happened during the Bush administration, complete with the lies about the video being the reason, I'd still be pissed.
Click to expand...

That's not really the issue. It is fair for journalists to ask tough questions. But such questions should be rooted in a factual basis. The questioning resulted for information that was material and false. On account of that situation, the questions were not fair ones.
 
donsutherland1 said:
That's not really the issue. It is fair for journalists to ask tough questions. But such questions should be rooted in a factual basis. The questioning resulted for information that was material and false. On account of that situation, the questions were not fair ones.
Click to expand...

And if the President and his administration weren't stonewalling then the news agencies wouldn't have to hunt down people who might have information. Just the names of all the survivors would be nice.
 
It's amazing to me that this is still even in the news, those 24 news networks know how to keep the American public distracted.
 
Higgins86 said:
It's amazing to me that this is still even in the news, those 24 news networks know how to keep the American public distracted.
Click to expand...

From what?
 
Harshaw said:
From what?
Click to expand...

From other tv channels lol. All about those Ratings, why bother reporting the actual current news when you can milk a story like Benghazi for a year.
 
Higgins86 said:
From other tv channels lol. All about those Ratings, why bother reporting the actual current news when you can milk a story like Benghazi for a year.
Click to expand...

That doesn't actually make any sense.
 
I'm still waiting for someone... anyone... to address what I said:

Grim17 said:
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but 60 Minutes hasn't found the the guys entire story was false or manufactured, but found an inconsistency in one part of his story that concerns his where abouts during the attack...

Do I have this correct?


Am I also correct in saying that 60 Minutes hasn't found any of his other statments to them in that interview to be "inconsistant", "manufactured" or "False"?


There are a couple of comments I'd like to add... First, I saw that interview, and I believe this guy isn't even an American citizen and if that's the case, why are people labeling this a "right wing" thing? Seems to me the guy is either lying or embellishing part or parts of his story to spice up his book for financial gain, but I'm not seeing anything to indicate any kind of political motive on his part... Is anyone else?

Another thing I noticed and find quite interesting, is that there are as many people, if not more, attacking Fox News on this thread, as they are the network that actually ran the story in the first place, CBS... That sure says something about the left around here, and that something well, it ain't too good.
Click to expand...
 
Harshaw said:
That doesn't actually make any sense.
Click to expand...

why are you touched in the head?

TV News Networks want you to watch them over other TV News Networks so they sensationalize the news in order to keep you watching.
 
Higgins86 said:
why are you touched in the head?

TV News Networks want you to watch them over other TV News Networks so they sensationalize the news in order to keep you watching.
Click to expand...

I'm not "touched in the head"; you said something about reporting on Benghazi in an attempt to "keep the American public distracted." If that was a reference to ratings, which I really don't think it is, it's a goofy way of phrasing it.
 
Harshaw said:
I'm not "touched in the head"; you said something about reporting on Benghazi in an attempt to "keep the American public distracted." If that was a reference to ratings, which I really don't think it is, it's a goofy way of phrasing it.
Click to expand...

It was both a reference to ratings and keeping the public distracted. Why address your own parties failings when you have these million dollar news networks attack the opposition with fabricated reports, slander and lies.
The only amazing thing about Benghazi is that it doesnt happen more to foreign embassies in hostile countries and then what happened a commincation break down between branches of the government? Hardly suprising given the amount of red tape they go through and the fact it was in the heat of the election.
Despite this the American media has somehow made this into a bipartisan battleground which they are still debating even though its been one year since it went down.
 
Grim17 said:
I'm still waiting for someone... anyone... to address what I said:
Click to expand...

You aren't going to get an answer because your post is right on and makes too much sense. We cannot have that in this forum of Obamabots who want to believe anything that will prop up this incompetent and ignore the facts in the case. We have a DEAD Ambassador, Americans signing Non Disclosure agreements, an Administration that is preventing access and yet Obama and his Administration are the victims here? I don't get it nor do I understand how anyone can still support this incompetent failure?
 
Higgins86 said:
It was both a reference to ratings and keeping the public distracted. Why address your own parties failings when you have these million dollar news networks attack the opposition with fabricated reports, slander and lies.
Click to expand...

That still doesn't make any sense -- what "party" are you talking about, and what does that have to do with the news providers?
 
Grim17 said:
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but 60 Minutes hasn't found the the guys entire story was false or manufactured, but found an inconsistency in one part of his story that concerns his where abouts during the attack...

Do I have this correct?


Am I also correct in saying that 60 Minutes hasn't found any of his other statments to them in that interview to be "inconsistant", "manufactured" or "False"?


There are a couple of comments I'd like to add... First, I saw that interview, and I believe this guy isn't even an American citizen and if that's the case, why are people labeling this a "right wing" thing? Seems to me the guy is either lying or embellishing part or parts of his story to spice up his book for financial gain, but I'm not seeing anything to indicate any kind of political motive on his part... Is anyone else?

Another thing I noticed and find quite interesting, is that there are as many people, if not more, attacking Fox News on this thread, as they are the network that actually ran the story in the first place, CBS... That sure says something about the left around here, and that something well, it ain't too good.
Click to expand...
Fox is mentioned because the man's story that he was a witness to the attack (which was a lie) promoted the right wing narrative against President Obama. Republican Congress people are using the attack against the President:

In an explosive report on CBS’s “60 Minutes” on Sunday, the British supervisor of local security guards protecting the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on the night of Sept. 11, 2012, provided a harrowing account of the extremist attack that killed four Americans.

[...]


Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.) and other Republican lawmakers referred to it repeatedly during a Wednesday news conference. Graham said he would blockconfirmation of all of President Obama’s nominees, including Jeh Johnson as homeland security secretary and Janet L. Yellen as head of the Federal Reserve, until the administration allowed government witnesses to the attack to appear before Congress.

...

‘60 Minutes’ broadcast helps propel new round of back-and-forth on Benghazi - The Washington Post​
 
Harshaw said:
That still doesn't make any sense -- what "party" are you talking about, and what does that have to do with the news providers?
Click to expand...

Party as in the GOP/Democrats. Both parties use different news networks to attack the opposition even when the evidence isn't there. An example of this was Benghazi, the way Fox news over reported it and the GOP jumped all over it. You could also say networks like CNN tried to downplay too much as well so they could protect deomcratic interests as well as the Presidential campiagn. Its all partisan rubbish and the actual news is rarely reported on any of these networks.
 
Higgins86 said:
Party as in the GOP/Democrats. Both parties use different news networks to attack the opposition even when the evidence isn't there. An example of this was Benghazi, the way Fox news over reported it and the GOP jumped all over it. You could also say networks like CNN tried to downplay too much as well so they could protect deomcratic interests as well as the Presidential campiagn. Its all partisan rubbish and the actual news is rarely reported on any of these networks.
Click to expand...

But ALL the networks reported extensively on Benghazi . . . what were they "distracting the American public" from?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom