• 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!

New york times had reporter 'talking to the attackers' during benghazi massacre

And the media went along with the Bush administration's narrative, which I'd call pretty "compliant." The Democrats wised up on that war after a couple of years when it was obvious that the narrative wasn't true.

That was political though as well. It didn't take that long to understand the narrative wasn't true. Of course partisan supporters weren't going against their president (which is IMO the biggest threat to our republic) but plenty of us knew at the time and were vocal, in our meager ways. Both legislators and journalists have said subsequently that, at the time, opposition was career suicide!! That's too bad, that that is what it has to come down to. In my wee corner of the world it was painful, wasn't threatening to my career but it was painful, and I do not exaggerate.
 
And the media went along with the Bush administration's narrative, which I'd call pretty "compliant." The Democrats wised up on that war after a couple of years when it was obvious that the narrative wasn't true.
What are you saying? In the time it began everyone was on the same side. Just follow the vote! And what 'narrative" are you talking about?
 
What are you saying? In the time it began everyone was on the same side. Just follow the vote! And what 'narrative" are you talking about?

That Saddam was a threat.
 
There's so much misinformation out there who really knows. It could be that it was planned for 9-11 as a terrorist attack and the video was used for popular support, it could be that it was all about the video, it could be that the video really wasn't a motivating factor for an organized attack.

The only thing I know is we seem to always be learning things piecemeal and it's ridiculous. Issa hasn't been doing a very good job investigating this and disseminating real information. The WH hasn't been doing a good job being totally open. And why is the NYT just now saying that it had a contracted reporter on the ground that evening a year and 4 months after the fact.

I totally agree about the misinformation and the disinformation also. Issa may be trying to play this thing out as long as he can or until the elections if he has really found anything at all. As for the White House and their actions, it does smell of a cover up. Whether it is about something important or just some tid bit that doesn't mean anything that the WH thinks will embarrass them, I don't know.

I suppose the bottom line for me is that I don't know if there is any there, there. After all this time I can't shake that smell that something is being covered up, but at the same time I feel there is a witch hunt going one here. So I elect to sit back and watch and listen before I start taking sides one way or the other. I am not satisfied with either side at this point. I just hope it doesn't take 20 years for the truth to come out.
 
I totally agree about the misinformation and the disinformation also. Issa may be trying to play this thing out as long as he can or until the elections if he has really found anything at all. As for the White House and their actions, it does smell of a cover up. Whether it is about something important or just some tid bit that doesn't mean anything that the WH thinks will embarrass them, I don't know.

I suppose the bottom line for me is that I don't know if there is any there, there. After all this time I can't shake that smell that something is being covered up, but at the same time I feel there is a witch hunt going one here. So I elect to sit back and watch and listen before I start taking sides one way or the other. I am not satisfied with either side at this point. I just hope it doesn't take 20 years for the truth to come out.

The problem, and it may have begun with Nixon, is that politicians can easily confuse their own self interest and power with National Security. That's Benghazi.
 
And you believe A) Saddam was not a threat and B) George Bush was the only one who claimed he was a threat?

a. No, I do not believe Saddam was a threat to the U.S.

b. I never said Bush was the only one who claimed he was.
 
a. No, I do not believe Saddam was a threat to the U.S.

b. I never said Bush was the only one who claimed he was.

How does any of that relate to "What are you saying? In the time it began everyone was on the same side. Just follow the vote! And what 'narrative" are you talking about?"

Why did you bother responding when you have nothing to add?
 
How does any of that relate to "What are you saying? In the time it began everyone was on the same side. Just follow the vote! And what 'narrative" are you talking about?"

Why did you bother responding when you have nothing to add?

The narrative was that Saddam was a threat. You asked the question, I answered it. If you don't like the answer, don't ask the question.
 
The narrative was that Saddam was a threat. You asked the question, I answered it. If you don't like the answer, don't ask the question.

You added "a threat to the US". That was never mentioned, nor was the question asked, Please don't get involved unless you can add something of interest to the conversation.
 
You added "a threat to the US". That was never mentioned, nor was the question asked, Please don't get involved unless you can add something of interest to the conversation.

The narrative WAS that he was a threat to the U.S. I thought that was implicit, but apparently I'm the only one of the two of us who actually remembers 2003.
 
The problem, and it may have begun with Nixon, is that politicians can easily confuse their own self interest and power with National Security. That's Benghazi.

I understand. It would seem to me that by now any president ought to know the cover up is always worse than any crime or embarrassing something.
 
I understand. It would seem to me that by now any president ought to know the cover up is always worse than any crime or embarrassing something.

Well, if you can fool some of the people all of the time, that usually enough. And they all think they are smarter than the people who voted for them.
 
Well, if you can fool some of the people all of the time, that usually enough. And they all think they are smarter than the people who voted for them.

You can say that again. They also think they know what is best for the people than the people themselves. Unlike the old days when the elite who ruled over the people was decided by bloodlines, here we elect the elite to rule over us. But they still are the elite.
 
The narrative WAS that he was a threat to the U.S. I thought that was implicit, but apparently I'm the only one of the two of us who actually remembers 2003.

But I remember the threat of a mushroom cloud over a US city.
 
O ya its all bull**** without a doubt, if it seems I focus more on the right than the left its because the right has the worst and most vocal crazies in my opinion.

Bwuahahahaha
 
It also goes against the facts since a social media monitoring firm noticed the first posts in Benghazi about the video were posted the day after.....not one post about the video until after our govt made up the story!

So they were motivated by the YouTube video, and AQ wasn't involved? That definitely goes against the RW narrative.
 
You can say that again. They also think they know what is best for the people than the people themselves. Unlike the old days when the elite who ruled over the people was decided by bloodlines, here we elect the elite to rule over us. But they still are the elite.

Eh, some of them are elite, most of them are scum.
 
Eh, some of them are elite, most of them are scum.

Same difference. How about the scum of the elite? That seems to work with the body of congress which passes laws for us to toe the line on and then exempts themselves for most of them.
 
Same difference. How about the scum of the elite? That seems to work with the body of congress which passes laws for us to toe the line on and then exempts themselves for most of them.

Power hungry narcissists I think accurately describes 2/3 of them easily. Their staffs are more mentally elite than they are. That being said, that leaves about 1/3 that probably care about the country more than their own self preservation. Scum in suits with a smile?
 
Power hungry narcissists I think accurately describes 2/3 of them easily. Their staffs are more mentally elite than they are. That being said, that leaves about 1/3 that probably care about the country more than their own self preservation. Scum in suits with a smile?

Roger that. Sounds good to me.
 
This crap buys her cover for the Democrat Primary. Not so much so the General.
 
Back
Top Bottom