|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 919
All Pro
|
OP
All Pro
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 919 |
 The Benghazi cover-up is getting uglier by the day, as the Obama administration is apparently suppressing authentic attempts to find out the truth about what happened. Congressman Jason Chaffetz informed Breitbart investigative journalist Kerry Pickett that the Republican representative has been “thwarted” by State Department officials while trying to contact survivors of the Benghazi terrorist attack that left four American servicemen dead. According to Breitbart News: “My understanding is that we still have some people in the hospital. I’d like to visit with them and wish them nothing but the best but the State Department has seen it unfit for me to know who those people are—or even how many there are,” Rep. Chaffetz said. “I don’t know who they are. I don’t know where they live. I don’t know what state they’re from. I don’t even know how many there are. It doesn’t seem right to me.” “This is so patently different than any other experience I’ve had. Unfortunately, people have been killed and maimed and in harm’s way in Afghanistan and Iraq and in points beyond. It’s typically been the case that they would release those names but in this case, they won’t. My challenge is to the media. You try and figure it out. They won’t let Congress know. They won’t seem to let the media know either.” The State Department did not respond to a query on the matter sent by Breitbart News. The mainstream media are obviously avoiding forthright and factual coverage of the Benghazi, Libya terrorist attack. And now the Obama administration is seemingly trying to make difficult the jobs of investigative journalists and Republican representatives trying to find out the truth about why military aid was denied those who were at the Benghazi mission. There are still remaining questions that demand answering in order for the administration to be held accountable to the citizenry. It is virtually indisputable that at the very least the administration took an extraordinarily inconsistent line after the 9/11 anniversary attack, refraining from clearly describing the attack “terrorism.” Townhall editor Guy Benson, in a piece entitled “Three months later: No justice, unanswered questions on Benghazi,” shows that the file case is not closed on why American Ambassador Chris Stevens was brutally murdered, along with State Department official Sean Smith and CIA security staff Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty. The two former SEALS Doherty and Woods braved a daring rescue against daunting odds, after having been denied twice by higher-ups, which would under a normal media make them nationally renown heroes. As it stands now — they are just “bumps in the road” for the Obama administration. 
GO BROWNS!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,433
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,433 |
Quote:
According to Breitbart News
I hear this place is just as fair and balanced as that other place.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
Quote:
According to Breitbart News
I hear this place is just as fair and balanced as that other place.
The White House propaganda and cheerleaders club?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,433
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,433 |
Well, they're quite good at the whole covering up drone stuff. I was thinking somewhere else.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,419
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,419 |
Actually, though, I did see an interview with a couple of Senators who said that they cannot even get names of the Benghazi survivors from the administration. That is wrong. It is the duty of Congress to investigate things like this, and they cannot do so if they are blocked at every turn. It's certainly no fun for the administration, especially when there is a member of the opposite Party trying to get the investigation going, but it is their responsibility.
Further, after all of the talk of finding those responsible and bringing them to justice, very little has happened. The FBI has been allowed to do almost nothing since the attack, and network news has actually managed to interview one of the ringleaders of the attack in a damned cafe, while we sit around wondering why our law enforcement people can't do the same.
Of course, the story has been off the front page for quite a while, so most people have already forgotten. I doubt that's by accident.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,991
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,991 |
There are rumored to be as many as 50 survivors. Not a single one of them has been interviewed. Forget the news agency reporting it, where are these people?
Are any of you good with the idea that our government left over 50 people to die? Are any of you good with the cover up of the Benghazi attack?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,133
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,133 |
Quote:
Are any of you good with the cover up of the Benghazi attack?
Apparently not if Breitbart reports it.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,195
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,195 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
According to Breitbart News
I hear this place is just as fair and balanced as that other place.
The White House propaganda and cheerleaders club?
Every administration has one.
So by attacking this one are you a terrorist lover?
Probably not, but to compare any source of info to Breitbart or Fox is like comparing horse meat to BS.
You'll want to get a good smell before eating any of it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,195
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,195 |
Quote:
There are rumored to be as many as 50 survivors. Not a single one of them has been interviewed. Forget the news agency reporting it, where are these people?
Are any of you good with the idea that our government left over 50 people to die? Are any of you good with the cover up of the Benghazi attack?
Breitbart must be a crap media if they can't dig up any dirt on this.
It seems like it's more effective for them to ask other media to do the work while they rather just make accusations.
Why isn't Breitbart being held accountable for not finding and interviewing these survivors?
Is the Obama administration the lamest or the most powerful administration in history?
Why can't these people make their minds up?
I believe they're actually Marxist puppets working to make insane accusations so that the mainstream media and others feel sorry for Obama. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,991
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,991 |
Quote:
Breitbart must be a crap media if they can't dig up any dirt on this.
That's actually quite a good pun. I hope you meant to say it.
No media has found the survivors. This was a consolate with a staff, as the ambassador was at that location. The media that's actually looking into the missing survivors believe they are in hospitals under aliases. Personally, I think they will be held until the controversy disappears. Eventually, they will come forward.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 4
Rookie
|
|
Rookie
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 4 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,195
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,195 |
Google has like 10 pages of conservative media telling the same story.
Conservative media sucks if they can fill 10 pages of google but can't find the survivors or get interviews.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205 |
nrtu alone
Why is it when people don't like a story, they attack the source? What if its true? Do you care if it might be accurate, or is it an agenda besides the truth that makes you attack Breitbart, FNC, or Rush Limbaugh?
Like the saying goes; if the truth is on your side, argue the truth; if the law is on your side, argue the law; if neither the truth or the law is on your side, pound the table.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,433
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,433 |
I take no offense to a story in which may expose politicians or other officials from either side of the aisle. What I take offense to is fantastical headlines, slanderous claims, and other yellow journalistic qualities which have no factual backing.
We live in an era where places believe Bush/Illuminati/Aliens/Jews/CIA were behind 9/11. Or places may claim Bush belongs to a secret society to enslave the world, John Kerry belonged to the same organization, or Obama is (insert ridiculous scare tactic word here). Many of these headlines and "well researched" articles come from the most polarized sources on both sides. Some places like this tend to be The Fox Nation, HuffPo, Breitbart, The Blaze, Think Progress, etc. All of these articles attempt to get clicks, for us to look at the ads so the website makes money, and fuel the machine we're fueling by bickering about this stuff.
There should be substantial evidence, people willing to go on record, documented proof, etc. if any of these ultra left/right outlets do post these things. Take a page from award winning jouranlist. Heck, even take the NPR approach and conduct multiple interviews from multiple viewpoints. Evidence is paramount and many of these places claim they can't bring the evidence because the "mainstream/liberal" media is suppressing such things.
One other quick point...I sure hope all those at Fox, Limbaugh's place, Breitbart Inc., Glenn Beck, et. al realize they are mainstream media. I never understood why they believed they were somehow separated from the "mainstream".
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 |
Oddly, I check out theblaze at least weekly, and I don't ever get pop up ads. Actually, theblaze doesn't write many of the articles - they only post them.
I want the facts. Nothing more, nothing less. I'll make up my own mind from there.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
One other quick point...I sure hope all those at Fox, Limbaugh's place, Breitbart Inc., Glenn Beck, et. al realize they are mainstream media. I never understood why they believed they were somehow separated from the "mainstream".
They don't believe it.
It's a very effective method that kind of got its roots with Agnew, but Limbaugh perfected in into mastery.
By creating the notion, Limbaugh a) gave his audience a rallying point, b) gave cause to the idea that there is a need for right-wing (i.e. unbiased) media, and c) sets up a mechanism by which any criticism or refutation of favored ideals can be dismissed as biased or the result of media indoctrination.
It's a great parlor trick of an argument, and it works. People of all political stripes or affiliations use it. But Limbaugh really kind of crafted it as it's used today.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205 |
Limbaugh has never presented himself as any more than a commentator. He has never presented himself as a member of the new media. Fox News and Breitbart are legit news organizations that are demonized by some because they choose not to follow the template of the NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, etc, "mainstream" (note quote marks) media. They recognized a large (although not a majority) segment of the American public that felt the accepted, existing news outlets were agenda driven, and not representative of the way they think. Most people don't want filtered news - they just want the truth. Its interesting to me that some people think NBC, CBS, ABC, and CNN are "unbiased" while Fox and Breitbart are considered "Right Wing".
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,556
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,556 |
We've known each other a decade or more, so I am sure you know I am not talking to you, but some people are idiots. This thread alone presents a dozen of them. It's funny how a intelligent comment or thread brings out the idiots. 
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong ![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,195
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,195 |
Fox News is actually an entertainment network. That's how they presented themselves when sued in court for lying.
They supposedly present news for 2 hrs. a day.
So no, they aren't legitimate journalists.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205 |
Quote:
Fox News is actually an entertainment network. That's how they presented themselves when sued in court for lying.
They supposedly present news for 2 hrs. a day.
Which differentiates them from NBC, ABC, CBS, or CNN how? Fox has "news" at the top of the hour, a 1 hour "news" show at 6pm called "Special Report" (Bret Baier), and then another "news" hour at 7 (Sheppard Smith). They also have a boatload of opinion shows, much like CNN and MSNBC, as opposed to NBC, ABC, CBS which fill non-news time slots with sit-coms, reality shows, and cop dramas. Yet, people like yourself seem to think their news is hard while Fox news is "slanted". Why?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,419
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,419 |
Because they disagree with the opinions being presented on the opinion shows.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 919
All Pro
|
|
OP
All Pro
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 919 |
Quote:
Fox News is actually an entertainment network. That's how they presented themselves when sued in court for lying.
They supposedly present news for 2 hrs. a day.
So no, they aren't legitimate journalists.
I like Fox just like I like my women, "fair and balanced."    
GO BROWNS!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,195
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,195 |
Quote:
I like Fox just like I like my women, "fair and balanced."
And I know you got some binders full of them too! 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Limbaugh has never presented himself as any more than a commentator. He has never presented himself as a member of the new media.
I didn't say otherwise.
You're the one who lumped him in with FOX and Breitbart (which I think is about right).
Quote:
Fox News and Breitbart are legit news organizations
No, they are not.
If I'm not mistaken, FOX has even claimed in court that it is not.
Quote:
They recognized a large (although not a majority) segment of the American public that felt the accepted, existing news outlets were agenda driven, and not representative of the way they think. Most people don't want filtered news - they just want the truth.
Which is it? Do they want the truth unfiltered, or do they want something representative of the way they think?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Quote:
According to Breitbart News
I hear this place is just as fair and balanced as that other place.
Good to see things haven't changed... very first post ignores the content and goes after the source... makes for great conversation and debate. 
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205 |
Quote:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limbaugh has never presented himself as any more than a commentator. He has never presented himself as a member of the new media.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't say otherwise.
You're the one who lumped him in with FOX and Breitbart (which I think is about right).
No, I didn't lump them together. Rocket did, you agreed, and I replied to your post. Anyway, its beside the point I was trying to make about the actual thread - that certain posters seem more concerned with discrediting the source, rather than whether the story might be true.
Quote:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fox News and Breitbart are legit news organizations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, they are not.
If I'm not mistaken, FOX has even claimed in court that it is not.
New Corp made a corporate decision to split its companies into two groups, Entertainment and Publishing. Fox News was put into the entertainment group along with 20th Century Fox and Fox Broadcast Network. Newscorp put its publishing asset into a separate group which includes The Wall St Journal, Times of London, Harper-Collins Books, and other print media. It was a reorganization based on business decisions, not classification.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303561504577493121669861262.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
If that makes FNC "entertainment" and not "news", then how can ABC - owned by Disney; NBC - owned by NBC/Universal (a joint venture of GE and Comcast); CBS - owned by Viacom/National Amusements; CNN - owned by Time Warner ... be "News" organizations?
Quote:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They recognized a large (although not a majority) segment of the American public that felt the accepted, existing news outlets were agenda driven, and not representative of the way they think. Most people don't want filtered news - they just want the truth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which is it? Do they want the truth unfiltered, or do they want something representative of the way they think?
When they watch "The News", they want the truth. Opinion shows? They want something they agree with. Just like viewers for MSNBC, CNN, and the broadcast networks. How else to explain idiots like Chris Matthews?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
No, I didn't lump them together. Rocket did, you agreed, and I replied to your post.
The first mention of Limbaugh in this thread came from you, where you lumped the three together.
And my comments were pointing out that folks like Rush are well-aware that the whole 'liberal/mainstream media bias' thing is a lark.
Quote:
If that makes FNC "entertainment" and not "news", then how can ABC - owned by Disney; NBC - owned by NBC/Universal (a joint venture of GE and Comcast); CBS - owned by Viacom/National Amusements; CNN - owned by Time Warner ... be "News" organizations?
Did I say anything about those networks credibility or lack thereof?
Why must everyone always bring ABC/NBC/CBS/etc. into the discussion?
It's a deflection point. The discussion is whether or not FOX or Breitbart is a viable or credible news source. They aren't. And to argue so with a straight face is rather difficult.
Pointing to other sources and decrying them doesn't change that fact.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205 |
My mistake on the Limbaugh Lumping ... mea culpa. Quote:
If that makes FNC "entertainment" and not "news", then how can ABC - owned by Disney; NBC - owned by NBC/Universal (a joint venture of GE and Comcast); CBS - owned by Viacom/National Amusements; CNN - owned by Time Warner ... be "News" organizations?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did I say anything about those networks credibility or lack thereof?
Why must everyone always bring ABC/NBC/CBS/etc. into the discussion?
It's a deflection point. The discussion is whether or not FOX or Breitbart is a viable or credible news source. They aren't. And to argue so with a straight face is rather difficult.
Pointing to other sources and decrying them doesn't change that fact.
So are you saying there are no credible TV news outlets? If being owned by "entertainment" sector corporations isn't a disqualifier for those networks, why is it for Fox? BTW, simply repeating the statement:
Quote:
The discussion is whether or not FOX or Breitbart is a viable or credible news source. They aren't.
is not really the same as giving your reason for thinking it, which you haven't, other than to say they described themselves as "entertainment", and not "news". And speaking of "deflecting", what else would you call it when a whole thread gets hijacked into a discussion of the source of the story, instead of the story itself?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,195
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,195 |
Quote:
If that makes FNC "entertainment" and not "news", then how can ABC - owned by Disney; NBC - owned by NBC/Universal (a joint venture of GE and Comcast); CBS - owned by Viacom/National Amusements; CNN - owned by Time Warner ... be "News" organizations?
Because Fox identified themselves in court as an entertainment network. Which means they can say whatever they want without repercussions.
A regular network news source will usually fire someone who lies.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
what else would you call it when a whole thread gets hijacked into a discussion of the source of the story, instead of the story itself?
Another day on Dawgtalkers.....
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,401
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,401 |
Quote:
what else would you call it when a whole thread gets hijacked into a discussion of the source of the story, instead of the story itself?
Monday
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,790
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,790 |
Quote:
Google has like 10 pages of conservative media telling the same story.
Conservative media sucks if they can fill 10 pages of google but can't find the survivors or get interviews.
Do you doubt there are actually survivors? I do realize you have an issue with right wing media.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,790
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,790 |
Quote:
Fox News is actually an entertainment network. That's how they presented themselves when sued in court for lying.
They supposedly present news for 2 hrs. a day.
So no, they aren't legitimate journalists.
The Fox News Network is mostly right leaning opinion shows, not hard news. One hour a day of hard news (actually 40 minutes) is Special Report, what is the other? I assume it is The Fox Report.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
So are you saying there are no credible TV news outlets?
At this juncture ... no, I don't think I could say that any of the major networks are particularly credible or trustworthy sources for news.
I always advocate looking at source material if possible, but as far as major outlets that I consider credible, I'd say the Wall Street Journal and the BBC are two pretty good examples.
Quote:
is not really the same as giving your reason for thinking it, which you haven't, other than to say they described themselves as "entertainment", and not "news".
OK, Breitbart.com ... what's their big claim to fame as far as reporting and investigative journalism goes? Anthony Weiner texting pictures of his junk?
Outside of that, their biggest claims to fame are heavily edited videos that resulted in egg on their faces.
The site is known best for reporting bunk and screwing up. And you want me to explain why they aren't a credible source? 
As for FOX ... we're at a point where the people defending them are cornered into whittling a 24 hour news network into, what? 40 minutes? And hour and a half? And even if you tune into the 'hard news' segments, you'll still find a deep, deep vein of bias that's often based in rhetoric and not fact.
And it's not a deflection to bring up the fact that FOX has plead in court that they aren't a news network. They're doing that for a reason - because they're not a credible news network, and do not wish to be tied to the constraints of one.
The network itself doesn't consider itself a news network, and it's defenders are at a point where they can't really point to anything other than roughly 4 hours out of 168 without being laughed out of the room.
Now, if you tune into Hume or Smith or Wallace or Baier or whoever is doing the 'credible' , are you going to be fed a great deal of slant, selective information, or words and phrases which all add up to a very biased delivery of the news?
Emphatically, yes.
And I really like three out of four of those guys. (I prefer Smith. While he won't hesitate to let you know what he feels, he does it in outbursts and doesn't try to be subtle.)
I don't think FOX is any better or worse than other networks. Maybe at one time I could've said that, but only because FOX designed the playbook that everyone is running right now. MSNBC wouldn't exist if FOX hadn't built what they attempt to copy.
Here's the thing, Dave - with any news or opinion show, I have no problem watching and enjoying something from a point of view I disagree with, so long as the discourse has substance. I actually prefer it. Listening to opposing viewpoints leads to critical thinking. Listening to the comfort of your own viewpoint leads to indoctrination. But that's unlikely to happen much these days, because if you have Senator X on your show, and you ask really hard questions, Senator X isn't going to come back, and his buddies aren't going to want to come, either. And if you don't get the names, and the other show does, etc.
So journalism in this country - FOX, NBC, CBS, whoever - has come down to this game where we pretend that they're asking the really tough questions, but they rarely are. The whole gang is kind of in on it.
And this isn't limited. The media and the politicians from both sides know the rules of this game and benefit from it. Most of the time, when I tune into any opinion or debate show, and they're doing the liberal vs. conservative debate with the respected representatives, I usually tend to think that both sides are making halfcooked, boilerplate arguments. The guy in the tweed coat with elbow patches says 'Raise taxes!' and the Arrow shirt model guy says 'Cut welfare!'. That's pretty much the level of discourse you're going to get, whether it's FOX or MSNBC.
And the news that's supposed to be considered 'hard' doesn't stray too far from that template, either.
Quote:
And speaking of "deflecting", what else would you call it when a whole thread gets hijacked into a discussion of the source of the story, instead of the story itself?
DawgTalkers?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,195
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,195 |
Quote:
Quote:
Google has like 10 pages of conservative media telling the same story.
Conservative media sucks if they can fill 10 pages of google but can't find the survivors or get interviews.
Do you doubt there are actually survivors? I do realize you have an issue with right wing media.
Not sure how you could possibly conclude that I have a doubt there are survivors. 
I have a doubt that any administration has the ability to keep people quiet if they don't WANT to be quiet.
My issue with right wing media has nothing to do with this manufactured conspiracy.
My issue with right wing media is that there are people who actually listen to something that proudly claims bias and then they claim to know the truth.
I also have an issue with the whole "mainstream media" bias claim. I agree totally with "lamestream media" because more and more reporting is being done by repeating what's found on the web.
There are no more "investigative" journalists at the networks. Investigative journalists write books, keep blogs and provide the lamestream with sound bites.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,790
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,790 |
Quote:
Not sure how you could possibly conclude that I have a doubt there are survivors.
You are new here so I don't know you. There are plenty of people out there who doubt such obvious things. I figured I'd just come out and ask you instead of reading through all your posts to figure out if you are sane. 
I saw an interview of Sen. Lindsey Graham that this was discussed in. He said he did meet with a few of the survivors and they said they were told to keep their mouths shut. Are they lying? I don't have a clue. I will wait and see if Congress can get them to testify.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,556
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,556 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
According to Breitbart News
I hear this place is just as fair and balanced as that other place.
Good to see things haven't changed... very first post ignores the content and goes after the source... makes for great conversation and debate.
I agree.....pretty typical. Talk about putting blinders on.....but, some people really don't want the truth.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,991
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,991 |
I get you, Peen.
The thing that ticks me off most about Benhazi, is that our government is lying to us. It ticks me off even more that they're lying to us like we're all a bunch of drooling morons. It's been the spontaneous protest, the amazingly stupid video, just a few terrorists, completely unexpected, no request for security, no time for a response, never told anyone to stand down, etc, etc, etc. I hate being lied to, but I really hate being treated like I'm stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
You do realize that it's going to be very hard for our campaign to get any exposure if you keep that attitude right?
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,195
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,195 |
Quote:
Quote:
Not sure how you could possibly conclude that I have a doubt there are survivors.
You are new here so I don't know you. There are plenty of people out there who doubt such obvious things. I figured I'd just come out and ask you instead of reading through all your posts to figure out if you are sane.
I saw an interview of Sen. Lindsey Graham that this was discussed in. He said he did meet with a few of the survivors and they said they were told to keep their mouths shut. Are they lying? I don't have a clue. I will wait and see if Congress can get them to testify.
Well it seems that even though they were asked "to keep their mouths shut" they're still talking.
Why are Graham and conservatives in general so much more interested in this cover-up and lie than the ton of lies told by the other party's administration as well?
Where was Graham in 2003?
Back then if you called the administration "evil lying conspirators" you were labeled a terrorist lover.
We're still paying for that lie.
I'm not saying that Benghazi was a diplomatic high point in our history, but it seems some are being a little selective in their outrage and grieving for Americans who have lost their lives due to bureaucratic incompetence.
The Benghazi "lying" happened afterward and is open for debate as to it's intention and severity.
Iraq is a moment in our history that will forever be seen as our most costly lie and those who are pounding their chests and wailing now were waving flags and berating doubters then.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Obama Administration hiding
Benghazi survivors
|
|
![[Linked Image from s2.excoboard.com]](http://s2.excoboard.com/forums/25521/user/302752/484538.gif)
