US Embassy Stormed in Cairo...

[SCcoug]

The press is going to be reluctant to even now put too much out there. They look very complicit in watering down this whole thing. Who was it Candy (what an appropriate name for her) Crowley who shot down Romney when he brought the subject up in the debate?

Almost. Romney was going after the President for not calling Benghazi a terrorist attack in his rose garden speech (when he should have pointed out that Obama didn't answer the question of why security had been cut in the weeks leading up to the attack and then given the timeline of increasing violence in the months leading up to the attack). Obama then interrupts with an appeal to Crowley who then says that he did indeed say the word terror once in the speech. Then Michelle and those around her break into applause. After the townhall debate Crowley would walk back her on air fact check.

Also on the eve of the election (weeks after the above debate) CBS releases the rest of a "60 Minutes" interview that Steve Kroft conducted with Obama after the speech in which he has the asked if Obama believed it was a terrorist attack given that he went out of his way to not call it a terrorist attack. The president then said it was too early to tell one way or the other.

[myboynoah]

CNN on the story now.

FOX is looking prophetic.

[il Padrino Ute]

FOX is looking prophetic actually did what the media is supposed to do.

fify

[pellegrino]

I hate Obama.

[myboynoah]

CNN on the story now.

FOX is looking prophetic.

Apparently, CBS was leading the way as well.

Sharyl Attkisson of CBS News, a persistent voice of media skepticism on Benghazi

While other media, particularly Fox News, have been similarly skeptical about the official narrative about Benghazi, Attkisson and CBS might put the story in a different light. As a much-decorated reporter from a news outlet often derided by conservatives as a liberal beacon, Attkisson and her network flip the usual script on this highly politicized story. That is, it’s hard to peg her and her network as Republican sympathizers out to score political points against a Democratic president.

The story has made Attkisson — strong-willed, supremely confident and often controversial — a kind of Rorschach test among journalists.

Conservatives see a crusader and truth-teller. Tim Graham of the conservative Media Research Center calls Attkisson “an outlier” among TV reporters — a hard-nosed investigator of “how our public officials behave and misbehave.” Liberals see a partisan tool. “I think Attkisson has completely given herself over to the right and is very happy to be their champion,” says Eric Boehlert, a senior fellow at the liberal Media Matters for America organization.

I wonder why this was in the Style section.

[il Padrino Ute]

Apparently, CBS was leading the way as well.

Sharyl Attkisson of CBS News, a persistent voice of media skepticism on Benghazi



I wonder why this was in the Style section.

Attkisson has been relentless in her coverage, particularly by using twitter to get her stories out. Should everything blow up for Obama after these hearings, she deserves a Pulitzer for her work.

[il Padrino Ute]

From Jake Tapper's show last night:

[statman]

Go back and read Hillary's testimony from January - her famous "what difference does it make" rant testimony. If not for the words "I think this is correct, sir" she clearly committed perjury. And even then, she didn't think what she was saying was correct. She knew it was an outright fabrication.

This isn't going away. Stick a fork in Hillary. She's not going to be President. She covered Obama's ass on Benghazi, and destroyed her own political future in the process - though I doubt she realized she was doing that at the time...

[Omaha 680]

Go back and read Hillary's testimony from January - her famous "what difference does it make" rant testimony. If not for the words "I think this is correct, sir" she clearly committed perjury. And even then, she didn't think what she was saying was correct. She knew it was an outright fabrication.

This isn't going away. Stick a fork in Hillary. She's not going to be President. She covered Obama's ass on Benghazi, and destroyed her own political future in the process - though I doubt she realized she was doing that at the time...

I agree she's done.

But what is so odd about this story to me is if the administration had come out on the day after the attack with a story that the consulate in Libya had sustained a coordinated attack and the ties to terrorist groups are being investigated, this is not an issue at all. Their desire to paint the attack as something it wasn't created a controversy where there shouldn't be one.

Even with the controversy they created, I care much less about what yeswoman Susan Powers and others said in the media than what the response to the attacks in real time was. Was a rescue mission not authorized because of fears of political fallout? We know a couple of the victims died several hours after various high-ranking state department officials knew it was a sustained, coordinated attack, not a demonstration gone awry. Why did they not send in the cavalry?

[statman]

Why did they not send in the cavalry?

I don't think we'll ever hear the reason.

Worry about the public seeing the use of US military force as weakness is a total bullshit answer. Any use of military power - especially when we could release F15 gun camera footage of US military force killing dozens of ranting terrorists on the ground while putting no US military in jeopardy - would have been a positive right before an election. Republicans don't find a way to turn blowing up terrorists into a negative in a campaign. A few F15 flyovers and the terrorists scurry like vermin. Then have the special forces guys fly in from Tripoli and clean up the rest of the human excrement that's still out on the streets. ALL of this is positive for a campaign.

So why did they do nothing? Good question. Seems like there's some hugely negative on the ground in Benghazi that far out weighs both the positive PR of the just use of force and the general positive karma of doing the right thing and saving people whose lives you're obligated to protect. But what could be so negative as to cancel out the positive PR and make presumably decent people leave their guys on the ground to be killed and have their dead bodies defiled by Al Qaeda sodomite swine on the ground? There are only a few things I can think of.

Either that or our commander in chief is so fucking incompetent that he consciously left them on the ground to die and their corpses to be sodomized. He had bigger things to worry about - an early flight to Vegas so he could party with Beyonce and Jay-Z...

[dabrockster]

WH is holding a "Closed Doors/Off the record" briefing with certain reporters today.. WTF.. This is horseshit....


http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2...off-the-record

[venkman]

WH is holding a "Closed Doors/Off the record" briefing with certain reporters today.. WTF.. This is horseshit....


http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2...off-the-record

journalism is dead

[VirginiaCougar]

journalism is dead

Please don't call Breitbart or anything like it journalism - it is not, nor is it anything close to journalism. It is true that fair and objective journalism is on life support, but it is outlets like Breitbart, et.al. that are shooting the fatal shots. They are destroying real journalism.

[USUC]

Please don't call Breitbart or anything like it journalism - it is not, nor is it anything close to journalism. It is true that fair and objective journalism is on life support, but it is outlets like Breitbart, et.al. that are shooting the fatal shots. They are destroying real journalism.

The role of journalism has changed plenty of times throughout this nation's short history. Newspapers were controlled by the political parties at first, then the penny press arise along with yellow journalism. Then came the muckrakers and finally the rise of professional (objective) journalism in the 20th century. None of these are perfect or are necessarily the ideal. You lose a lot of substantive information with so called objective journalism. As long as there is more than one voice in the media marketplace, we will be fine.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

[dabrockster]

Please don't call Breitbart or anything like it journalism - it is not, nor is it anything close to journalism. It is true that fair and objective journalism is on life support, but it is outlets like Breitbart, et.al. that are shooting the fatal shots. They are destroying real journalism.

How so?? That is a pretty far leap you just made.. Spare me the "Gotcha Journalism" stuff..