• 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!

Threats Against Benghazi Whistleblowers Alleged [W:345/361]

Good, get back to the original point and don't let maggie reframe the argument to something different because she cannot answer the original point.

i like Maggie. i don't like partisan entertainment networks exploiting a tragedy.
 
Fox news is home of soft core conspiracy crap. They have a terrible reputation. It does not mean they cannot publish a fact at tiomes, but that one should certainly not watch them to hear facts. You can keep saying that this article is fine, but it never addressed fox's reputation at all. If that were the way things worked then Obama would be a good presidnet the moment he mad a decision you thought was good. Does that sound silly to you, because it does to me. No, fox is a terrible and inaccurate news station that has been caught in a number of blatant lies. Oh, and you have reframed the argument from fox being unreliable to whether or not the article is unreliable. Terrible tactic which changes the argument into something you think you can defend because you know you cannot defend the reputation of faux news.
You don't trust Fox. Got it. Who do you trust?
 
i'll consider the fox story if you can show me a similar level of fox coverage of any embassy attack which occurred under the previous administration. there were twelve attacks during the Bush years.
Got any details for us about those coverups?
 
Well, lets see what Fact Check. org has on this so called Benghazi Truther Stuff.....just so there can be no Claims or denials of what those from the Left have said all Along from the get go. Obama, Clinton, and of the other Incompetent Fools from their Administration. Did you think there was away to get around being totally and utterly incompentent? A wrist slapper.....is that what some thought this was?

Benghazi Timeline
The long road from "spontaneous protest" to premeditated terrorist attack.....let me know when ya find can come Up with a Fox link with those referenced here.

What follows is a timeline of events that we hope will help put the incident into perspective. We call attention in particular to these key facts:
◾There were no protesters at the Benghazi consulate prior to the attack, even though Obama and others repeatedly said the attackers joined an angry mob that had formed in opposition to the anti-Muslim film that had triggered protests in Egypt and elsewhere. The State Department disclosed this fact Oct. 9 — nearly a month after the attack.
◾Libya President Mohamed Magariaf insisted on Sept. 16 — five days after the attack — that it was a planned terrorist attack, but administration officials continued for days later to say there was no evidence of a planned attack.
◾Magariaf also said the idea that the attack was a “spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous.” This, too, was on Sept. 16. Yet, Obama and others continued to describe the incident in exactly those terms — including during the president’s Sept. 18 appearance on the “Late Show With David Letterman.”
◾Matt Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, was the first administration official to call it “a terrorist attack” during a Sept. 19 congressional hearing. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did the same on Sept. 20. Even so, Obama declined opportunities to call it a terrorist attack when asked at a town hall meeting on Sept. 20 and during a taping of “The View” on Sept. 24.

FactCheck.org : Benghazi Timeline

conspiracy theories often rely heavily on the initial confusion and misreporting after a tragedy. i simply don't believe that the administration got together and said, "well, we know what really happened, and we didn't send in help on purpose, so let's blame it on a movie; oh, whoops, we got caught. we would have gotten away with it, too, if it wasn't for you meddling fox kids." does this really sound like a credible theory to you?
 
But what exactly are they blowing the whistle on ?.............

Hard to say, the executive branch has not cooperated with releasing information. Sort of like the guns to mexico thing, silence and denial. Time will tell.
 
conspiracy theories often rely heavily on the initial confusion and misreporting after a tragedy. i simply don't believe that the administration got together and said, "well, we know what really happened, and we didn't send in help on purpose, so let's blame it on a movie; oh, whoops, we got caught. we would have gotten away with it, too, if it wasn't for you meddling fox kids." does this really sound like a credible theory to you?

(pssssst! the 2012 election was 2 months away)
 
What difference does it make at this point in time. Huh? Already tried that one?
Well then ...
That's not her signature ... it's an autopen and it doesn't mean she read it. She's furious someone put that signature on a denial for support.
Yeah ... that'll have to do for now.

The question surfaced again on Oct. 25 — more than six weeks after the incident — when government emails showed the White House and the State Department were told even as the attack was going on that Ansar al-Sharia, a little-known militant group, had claimed credit for it......snip~

Yeah.....course it does take people to actually ask the Right Questions. Although.....myself. I wouldn't have let Clinton rambled on in any hearing and after I was done. Clinton would have been destroyed and a Humiliation to this country.

Notice how Ansar al Sharia actions told the FBI.....sure come on down and question us.

Around 6 p.m.: “The mission annex then came under fire itself at around 6 o’clock in the evening our time, and that continued for about two hours. It was during that time that two additional U.S. personnel were killed and two more were wounded during that ongoing attack.”

6:07 p.m.: The State Department’s Operations Center sends an email to the White House, Pentagon, FBI and other government agencies that said Ansar al-Sharia has claimed credit for the attack on its Facebook and Twitter accounts. (The existence of the email was not disclosed until Reuters reported it on Oct. 24.)

Sept. 12: Libya’s deputy ambassador to London, Ahmad Jibril, tells the BBC that Ansar al-Sharia was behind the attack. The little-known militant group issues a statement that says it “didn’t participate as a sole entity,” neither confirming nor denying the report.

Sept. 12: Citing unnamed “U.S. government officials,” Reuters reports that “the Benghazi attack may have been planned in advance” and that members of Ansar al-Sharia “may have been involved.” Reuters quotes one of the U.S. officials as saying: “It bears the hallmarks of an organized attack.”.....snip~
 
because fox has chosen to be a confirmation bias-delivering entertainment network, not a legitimate news source. they cherry pick stories and data to support a preexisting conclusion rather than to choose news coverage in any unbiased way.

That's pretty humorous. How many networks have dedicated a reasonable amount of time to the murdering doctor in PA? Talk about cherry picking stories to report on or not... Didn't one major outlet 'break' the criminal activity behind a bunch of farm related payouts? That wasn't covered by the other outlets for years, but Brietbart broke the story years ago and all the media outlets laughed at him and refused to cover it.
 
that the network is only worthy of scorn from those of us who consider journalism to be even slightly noble.

Oh, this should be good, what does your delicate pallet find to be a good source of honest and unbiased journalism?
 
conspiracy theories often rely heavily on the initial confusion and misreporting after a tragedy. i simply don't believe that the administration got together and said, "well, we know what really happened, and we didn't send in help on purpose, so let's blame it on a movie; oh, whoops, we got caught. we would have gotten away with it, too, if it wasn't for you meddling fox kids." does this really sound like a credible theory to you?

Did you think the left could change up what they stated when it was recoded down for all to see. From the own words of their mouths how do you run to conspiracy.
 
Oh, this should be good, what does your delicate pallet find to be a good source of honest and unbiased journalism?


my primary news source is a blank google news search.

Google News

gives every story from multiple sources so that the reader can dilute out the bias.
 
That's pretty humorous. How many networks have dedicated a reasonable amount of time to the murdering doctor in PA? Talk about cherry picking stories to report on or not... Didn't one major outlet 'break' the criminal activity behind a bunch of farm related payouts? That wasn't covered by the other outlets for years, but Brietbart broke the story years ago and all the media outlets laughed at him and refused to cover it.

Oh, did you mean like the MSM media and the Shootings at Sandy Hook.....must be a conspiracy, huh? The main stream media had an agenda with the Administration on Gun Safety.....huh?
 
my primary news source is a blank google news search.

Google News

gives every story from multiple sources so that the reader can dilute out the bias.

So you have avoided answering the question. Again, if it gives you many sources to read from, what are those sources you read and find to be the nesting place(s) of 'good' journalism.
 
So you have avoided answering the question. Again, if it gives you many sources to read from, what are those sources you read and find to be the nesting place(s) of 'good' journalism.

my previous response contained the answer this question. numerous sources dilute bias. fox and msnbc continue to be outliers.
 
as I've already asked ... was there a coverup?

hard to know. no one gave it saturation coverage for seven months in an attempt to use the attack as a political weapon.
 
my previous response contained the answer this question. numerous sources dilute bias. fox and msnbc continue to be outliers.

No, it avoided the question. But it the same response that is ALWAYS seen by those that come out and decry fox and say it is 100% biased and not trustable as a source. They rail on about 'journalism' and never provide examples of sources they actually use or believe in.

The reality is that for the most part, journalism with integrity is just about nonexistent across the board. So there are no real 'credible' sources out there. To simply call out one outlet speaks to your own bias. But thanks for pretty much calling yourself out by avoiding answering the question (as expected).
 
hard to know. no one gave it saturation coverage for seven months in an attempt to use the attack as a political weapon.

That's your Google analysis?
 
Ive been giving the Executive branch the benefit of the doubt on Benghazi, but the evidence is mounting, and Im not sure where this is going to end up. Here we have the latest event in which intelligence officials with intimate knowledge of the attack have apparently never talked to congress. We know documents were withheld under executive privilege. We know there are survivors of the attack who have been hidden away. And when questioned by the media, the White House claims it just politics, instead of being cooperative. At a certain point you have to start asking who exactly the President works for. Is it us?

This latest change is developing in just the last couple hours. Except it to be a hot topic in the next week.

I heard the report on the radio and what they were saying is very plausible. I will say this, every administration looks upon congress with suspicion. Especially when congress is of the other party. If congress and the administration are of the same party, the administration is usually protected and can get away with things an administration with congress of the other party can't.

Time will tell on this if there is any there, there. History tells us it is better to have a quick embarrassment than try to hide the embarrassment which can eat away at any administration and sometimes a Nixon happens.
 
No, it avoided the question. But it the same response that is ALWAYS seen by those that come out and decry fox and say it is 100% biased and not trustable as a source. They rail on about 'journalism' and never provide examples of sources they actually use or believe in.

The reality is that for the most part, journalism with integrity is just about nonexistent across the board. So there are no real 'credible' sources out there. To simply call out one outlet speaks to your own bias. But thanks for pretty much calling yourself out by avoiding answering the question (as expected).

after dismissing the outliers (fox, msnbc, and a few others), an intellectually curious person can generally get a pretty good grasp on a story by reading the take of the American and global networks and print media. it takes a bit of work, but if a story is important, it's worth the effort.
 
That's your Google analysis?

like the Benghazi story, most of the media didn't cover it as a conspiracy. msnbc might have, but i don't follow that network.
 
after dismissing the outliers (fox, msnbc, and a few others), an intellectually curious person can generally get a pretty good grasp on a story by reading the take of the American and global networks and print media. it takes a bit of work, but if a story is important, it's worth the effort.

Again, no real answer, as no specific outlets are named. Keep digging that hole.
 
my previous response contained the answer this question. numerous sources dilute bias. fox and msnbc continue to be outliers.

That's amusing.....considering Fox is a major News Source. While MSDNC(MSNBC cable) isn't.
 
Back
Top Bottom