|

Fox News defends guy who lied to CBS about witnessing Benghazi attack

funny-pictures-8830

You don’t often see the talking heads at Fox News Channel coming to the defense of CBS in general or “60 Minutes” in particular.

But when the situation involves the so-called Benghazi scandal, the partisan political playbook at Fox News is subject to revisions and exceptions, as we see HERE:

Fox News attempted to rehabilitate the reputation of an alleged Benghazi “witness” who appeared in a discredited CBS report about the 2012 attack, after the same “witness” admitted he falsified statements about where he was that night.

On October 27, CBS’ 60 Minutes featured  testimony from “Morgan Jones,” a supposed “witness” of the September 2012 attack on U.S. diplomatic facilities who claimed that during the attack he scaled a wall of the compound and personally struck a terrorist in the face with his rifle. This story wildly diverged from the account he gave his superiors in an incident report that was obtained by The Washington Post, which stated he “could not get anywhere near” the compound the night of the attack. The Post also identified Jones’ real name as Dylan Davies.

On the November 4 edition of Fox & Friends, co-host Brian Kilmeade dismissed the inconsistencies in Davies’ accounts, instead suggesting that the State Department or the White House had leaked the report to the Post to “discredit a seemingly very credible witness about those attacks, who witnessed those attacks.” During the segment, guest Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) baselessly called Davies a “covert agent” — though he worked for private security contractor Blue Mountain, not the CIA — and Chaffetz and Kilmeade both attacked the Post for publishing Davies’ name, suggesting the article had endangered his life by revealing his identity.

But Davies’ account is not just inconsistent – he also admitted to The Daily Beast on November 2 that he had  lied about his actions during the night of the Benghazi attack to his supervisors. He explained his differing accounts of the night of the attack by claiming that he did not personally write the Blue Mountain incident report and admitting he had lied in his account to the company because ”he did not want his supervisor to know he had disobeyed his orders.”

Share:

47 Comments

  1. Connie Brauer

    Pat – I find it interesting how you worded, “so called Benghazi scandal”, as if it didn’t exist. Surely you are aware that we lost an American ambassador there. Since I have been away from Rockford so long, I can’t remember, are you considered a journalist or an editorial writer? Perhaps you could spend some worthy time in investigating this yourself. I also would be interested if you would write a few blogs on the lies that Barack Obama says to the American people instead of the few you are able to find on Fox News. Perhaps do a comparison of the lies that Nixon told versus the ones Obama has told. Then maybe do a pareto chart and see how they measure up. Much more interesting than the rhetoric of the so called lie of Fox.
    Connie Lou

    • Rita Arm

      Wow, what long winded bag of rocks.

      Dick Cheney was CEO of Haliburton from 1995 thru 2000. While he was Secretary of Defense the Pentagon chose Haliburton’s subsidiary Brown and Root to research the effectiveness of outsourcing military operations. Based on the results of the study the Pentagon Hired Brown and Root to implement the plan and Haliburton received over 1.7 billion from the Government for just their work in Iraq alone. (You know, that war Bush sold us on a pack of lies.) Oh, and while all that outsourcing was taking place, (including boxes of cash that just disappeared) Cheney claimed to have no further ties to Haliburton. Turns out he was receiving deferred payments from Haliburton and owned over a million dollars in stock options. Now isn’t that cozy.

      Please, your sense of outrage is lamely placed. You don’t have a leg to stand on when members of your party believe ACORN stole the election… years after they were shut down.. again based on lies.

      Democrats don’t package their points to be sold by talking heads to morons, because it takes a little more intelligence to understand and debate the truth, than sow sound bites and fervor. Reread your post. It is full of smug generalizations. The hypocrisy is yours. Your party owns it…including the unethical pretentious fake Christianity and belligerent gun advocation.

  2. It seems that human beings are getting caught up in this reality tv mindset that is permeating every moment of our lives, from people blabbing their daily movements on FB, to the NSA watching our activities, to the video cams laced throughout our daily lives just about wherever we go, to the instant fame that youtube can bring, we’re all actors now.

    Many people appear to be seeking their 15 minutes of fame flavored with whatever their political leanings might be, even if it means lying to get that attention. What benefit or purpose did it serve for this guy to lie, as it appears he did?

    Considering that the right claims to be God’s chosen political persuasion, when did lying become ok if it means you can score a point for your side? The right has always claimed to be more moral as opposed to their perception of the godless left.

    Is this what morality looks like in the view of the republicans,whatever it takes to win the claim or the argument, even if means you have to lie?

  3. shawnnews

    It is silly to put a special focus on the attacks on the Benghazi embassy when there have been many attacks on US embassies attacked all over the world. In 1983 terrorists blew up a barracks of marines in Beirut. Attacks against US installations happen often.
    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_attacks_on_U.S._diplomatic_facilities
    Here is how Republicans spin things: if am event like a terrorist attack happens while they hold office, they will say the attackers hate freedom and it shows that since the world is dangerous it is all the more reason they should be in office. 9:11 for example. When the democrats hold office they pull this trick where they claim the attack happened “under their watch” almost implying a cause.
    If we use that logic Bush would even be a bigger derelict than partisans make him out to be because it would mean that somehow he caused it or was negligent. Really no I’ve was looking because there had not been an attack like it.
    You can see some of the administration’s ineptitude here. But what really makes Benghazi special is that it demonstrates the length people will go to spread evil, seditious lies for the sake of smearing Obama.
    http://www.politifact.com/search/?q=Benghazi+

    • thehereandnow1

      If we use the Bush/Republican logic Benghazi would be a non-issue. First, the people on staff would have been properly equipped, not having their requests for additional security denied by a Democrat administration. And if it did happen, a Bush/Republican logic would have moved swiftly, capturing or killing those responsible instead of blaming the attack on a YouTube video and forbidding agents involved/with knowledge of the event from speaking to Congress.

      So yeah shawn, this wouldn’t be as big a deal if it happened under a Republican president. He or she wouldn’t muck it up like the big O has.

      • Rita Armstrong

        Shawn, that would be a great point if the Republicans had not admitted that their cuts to embassy security really caused this problem. Benghazi, has just become another sound bite for the uneducated racists who can’t handle the truth, or anything more complicated than a three sentence story line. Hey, that works for the GOP and FOX Views pro-lies followers.
        “For the past two years, House Republicans have continued to deprioritize the security forces protecting State Department personnel around the world. In fiscal year 2011, lawmakers shaved $128 million off of the administration’s request for embassy security funding. House Republicans drained off even more funds in fiscal year 2012 — cutting back on the department’s request by $331 million.”

  4. thehereandnow1

    And yet like some many other times, the administration lies by omission. The administration leaked to the Washington Post P-Diddles point of this story, yet they failed to mention that this person was interviewed by the FBI twice and both times backed up what he said to 60 mins.

    But playing along with the lie angle, would that be anything like lying when you tell Americans the attack was in response to a 9 minute YouTube video? Or maybe lying to the American people when you tell them if they like the doctor they have they can keep him or her?

    Here’s a story for you Pat. How about a blog about a man who wins the Nobel Peace Prize when he hasn’t even been in office for 10 months being caught on tape saying that when it comes to drone strikes he’s really good at killing people?

    I await your non-reply.

    • Rita Arm

      His first account was that he was at home, nowhere near the scene…. then he decides to write a book and all at once he is a power ranger at the scene. Benghazi is another mudslinging lie for those who are sore losers.. and losers you are.

      PS. There were local police on the ground during the attack who said that protestors were citing the video as a reason for their anger.

  5. Nice try Rita
    “Barbara Boxer’s claim that GOP budgets hampered Benghazi security ”
    The Pinocchio Test

    Boxer would have been on firmer ground if she had echoed the broad point made by the Accountability Review Board that both Republicans and Democrats in Congress repeatedly have failed to provide the State Department with the requested resources. Instead she narrowly tailored her critique to the two-year period when Republicans were in control of the House, failing to mention that Democrats have also “cut” the president’s budget request. Thus her remarks lacked significant context.

    Indeed, it is almost as if Boxer is living in a time warp, repeating talking points from six months ago that barely acknowledge the fact that extensive investigations have found little evidence of her claim that “there was not enough security because the budget was cut.”

    State Department officials repeatedly told Congress that a lack of funds was not an issue. Instead, security was hampered because of bureaucratic issues and management failures. In other words, given the internal failures, no amount of money for the State Department likely would have made a difference in this tragedy.”

    Three Pinocchios

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/barbara-boxers-claim-that-gop-budgets-hampered-benghazi-security/2013/05/15/d1e295cc-bdb0-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_blog.html

  6. thehereandnow1

    You mean like you and your fellow libs defending someone who lies like this?

    http://www.nationaljournal.com/white-house/lying-about-lies-why-credibility-matters-to-obama-20131105

  7. shawnnews

    The Benghazi balloon doesn’t float so Obama is a liar about health care.
    The people doing the lying on Benghazi are the people attempting to claim it is a special attack. In the link I posted we see plenty of attacks on US installations overseas. No, there was no special rush to get the culprits. The attacks still happened no matter who was in charge. It was reasonable to believe at the time the Benghazi attacks were part of the other protests in the Islamic world going on associated with the YouTube video. It wasn’t a diversion of blame at all.
    You guys are looking for a direct link specifically to Obama’s administration to smear him. I suspect the Republicans will ride that hobby horse for awhile.
    And who is defending Obama’s lies here? He can stick his foot in his mouth himself. It appears to be the conservative commenters who routinely believe lies. In fact, the only reason we are talking about Benghazi is because the right continues to present Benghazi as some sort of scandal and cover-up. In reality, nothing has been found to lay credible blame on Obama so they want to keep hunting.

  8. Double J

    I hope the RRstar is not actually paying captain cut and paste.

    4 people are dead – and the response by the administration was to LIE about a web video causing a spontaneous demonstration. The President himself took this sham to the UN – the Sec of State, and next Dem candidate for president carried this folly forward, and no one will answer questions.

    The sad part is that pat “cut n paste” Cunningham prefers to practice lazy, gutless so called journalism, instead of demanding answers for what is a national tragedy.

    I’m glad the families of these victims don’t have to look Pat in the eye, as they had to the Sec of state who lied and said they would find the answers and get the perpetrators.

    Try and deflect and blame Fox news as usual, and give the corrupt liar administration a free pass.

    Nice work as always pat……….

  9. Double J

    Shawnews -
    Why won’t the administration come clean about where and why the supported the “web video” and “spontaneous demonstration” lies? These are not “smears”, they are answers to why Americans were left to die with no help.

    Your continuing to draw in and Blame Bush is laughable and pathetic – he’s been gone for more than 5 yearrs.

    The fact is – The Presidnet and his administration are purposely obstructing an actual investigation, and pathetic partisan hacks like youu give them a free pass.

    Its not about Obama – its about how our govt shouuld protect our people, and being “transparent”.

    The most transparent administration ever – is a nice tag line, but its a rather cruel joke, especially to the families of those who died, and have been lied to.

  10. How many attacks were due to a video that no one saw and folks were killed? After all it was just a “bump in the road” so nothing to look at and we need to move on.

    “The Benghazi Cover-up Matters”

    Last Sept. 11, a terrorist attack left four Americans dead at the Benghazi, Libya, diplomatic mission. The next day, a State Department official wrote in an email, “The group that conducted the attacks, Ansar al-Sharia, is affiliated with Islamic terrorists.” Days later, however, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice went on Sunday talk shows and blamed an anti-Islam video for the violence, even though others in her own department knew better.

    The administration later claimed that Rice simply was following CIA talking points. But last week, The Weekly Standard and ABC released revised versions of the documents — and they don’t mention the video. Early versions of the talking points do mention Ansar Al-Shariah, however, even if Rice did not.

    At a news conference Monday, President Barack Obama talked of a pledge he made the day after the deaths of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty. Obama said that he promised to the American people “that we would find out what happened, we would make sure that it did not happen again, and we would make sure that we held accountable those who had perpetrated this terrible crime.”

    Really? Eight months later, there have been no arrests, even though some of the perpetrators can be seen on camera. (The FBI waited until May 1 to release photographs of three people of interest.) The only guy Washington has put behind bars is Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the man who shot the video that did not spark the Benghazi violence, for violating conditions of his parole.”

    Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/05/14/the_benghazi_cover-up_matters_118395.html#ixzz2joa3qlI5
    Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter

  11. shawnnews

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_Innocence_of_Muslims
    Video that no one saw? It was broadcast on Egyptian TV. Do you guys just invent history? The attacks happened at the same time as other protests. There’s no misdirection. Benghazi is the newest fundraising technique and scaremongering that you’re falling for.

    • shawn? Egyptian TV? Was it broadcast on Al Jazeera too? They are the more credible news agency covering ME activities. Egyptian TV could be some bogus site created to sway public opinion for all we know. In situations like Benghazi and all things political, there’s often times as much of a disinformation effort as there is one seeking the truth and you never know who’s behind it. I remember another situation where the preacher in Florida was blamed for an uprising in Afghanistan that should have been happening all over the ME if that was the real cause, but it was only in Afghanistan. The real story about why there was an uprising in only Afghanistan was related to the murder of a young boy by American soldiers who then mutilated his body and cut off his finger for a trophy. There was a distinct disinformation campaign that obviously was part of an organized plan to throw the attention away from the American military in the perception of the American people. Just saying that propaganda comes from all sides and even though its supposed to be against the law for our govt to use propaganda on the American people, it happens all the time. All I’m saying is we really won’t know the truth. It’s probably being hidden or obfuscated for “national security” reasons. The CIA most likely played a big role in the goings on in that embassy and it just can’t be admitted to.

  12. shawnnews

    All attacks on the US are serious — but to single out Benghazi while ignoring the many others that have happened is a partisan game. It is aimed at smearing Obama.

  13. I believe Benghazi was singled out because of the the administration’s explanation of the attacks immediately after the fatal strikes, when there was mounting evidence that suggests the information was revised to intentionally mislead Americans.
    I see a pattern, change Benghazi to the ACA and you can keep your ___(fill in the blank) Period!

  14. Double J

    History has told us it is not the event that is always the problem, it is the cover up, and the unwillingness to answer questions truthfully. Your comments about the video have been completely debunked – and you stay with the party line.

    You are a blind faith defender – who will defend the President, and could care less about the families that were affected that were promised answers, and the men who died that were left behind.

    I guess I have to give you credit for at least admitting you are a completely partisan hack. Sad – but you are up front about it.

  15. What is really sad to me is the lack of willingness of Americans to demand answers. There is too much of a tendency to just accept “the administration line”, because it is “their party. Same went for republicans during the Bush years.

    We need a free and active press to investigate, and stay on these issues. The issues around the ACA are no different – the President is now “dramatically revising” his comments on people’s ability to keep their insurance and doctors.

    This is not about partisanship – its about Liberty.

  16. shawnnews

    Although Obama is responsible for his own overstatements, false predictions and errors a lie is a purposeful deception.
    Obama says you can keep your current plan and doctor.
    The Republicans say the law includes death panels.
    Obama’s administration initially believes people were protesting the movie trailer — like in other parts of the world in the same time frame — read the link I posted.
    The republicans say Obama was sitting in the situation room watching the ambassador die and/or refusing to send troops in.
    What pattern of lies are referring to? Are you referring to the careless statements made By Obama and his team or the treasonous accusations aimed at the administration for the sole sake of angering party rubes? The bigger pattern of deceit and carelessness rests with conservative politicians and pundits.

  17. shawnnews

    It is important to remember that most Conservative party and news sources are telling are not aimed at liberals. The lies are bing told to the people in the party to get them energized to go vote or contribute to party causes. If you want to be treated that way, keep going back.

  18. it’s now a matter of record, the administration was aware back in 2010 that millions of americans would lose their current coverage.

    The Presidents statements:
    - If you like your insurance coverage, you can keep it – Period.

    This is not a “republican distortion” – its the President. His own words, in a campaign.

    Why is it that in your eyes only republicans are “intentionally deceitful/ liars”?

    Here’s a perfect example – and now, the president is trying to say “he did not say it.

    Not only are blind partisans like you causing problems for America, but the relentless ignoring of these misleading, deceitful statements by the press is beyond a joke, its causing our country major harm.
    On Bengazzi, all we are expecting is the most transparent administration in the history of the universe to answer questions nd be honest. Why did they did not order troops in. Was a stand down ordered and why? Where was the President, and what was his authority over this? Why the reports and concerns of the ambassador ignored by the administration? Who told Sec Rice to say it was an “impromptu demonstration”? and why the Sept 11 anniversary went by with no one on alert?

    What smear, lies are within clarity around those questions?

    Again – People died, and our sovereign embassy was destroyed. Our Ambassador was brutally murdered. And YES, the American people are entitled to answers.

    The “pattern of deceit and carelessness” you describe is really one thing – BLIND partisanship. Period.

  19. DoubleJ, just saying,

    January 22, 2002. Calcutta, India. Gunmen associated with Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami attack the U.S. Consulate. Five people are killed.

    June 14, 2002. Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide bomber connected with al-Qaida attacks the U.S. Consulate, killing 12 and injuring 51.

    October 12, 2002. Denpasar, Indonesia. U.S. diplomatic offices bombed as part of a string of “Bali Bombings.” No fatalities.

    February 28, 2003. Islamabad, Pakistan. Several gunmen fire upon the U.S. Embassy. Two people are killed.

    May 12, 2003. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Armed al-Qaida terrorists storm the diplomatic compound killing 36 people including nine Americans. The assailants committed suicide by detonating a truck bomb.

    July 30, 2004. Tashkent, Uzbekistan. A suicide bomber from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan attacks the U.S. Embassy, killing two people.

    December 6, 2004. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Al-Qaida terrorists storm the U.S. Consulate and occupy the perimeter wall. Nine people are killed.

    March 2, 2006. Karachi, Pakistan again. Suicide bomber attacks the U.S. Consulate killing four people, including U.S. diplomat David Foy who was directly targeted by the attackers. (I wonder if Lindsey Graham or Fox News would even recognize the name “David Foy.” This is the third Karachi terrorist attack in four years on what’s considered American soil.)

    September 12, 2006. Damascus, Syria. Four armed gunmen shouting “Allahu akbar” storm the U.S. Embassy using grenades, automatic weapons, a car bomb and a truck bomb. Four people are killed, 13 are wounded.

    January 12, 2007. Athens, Greece. Members of a Greek terrorist group called the Revolutionary Struggle fire a rocket-propelled grenade at the U.S. Embassy. No fatalities.

    March 18, 2008. Sana’a, Yemen. Members of the al-Qaida-linked Islamic Jihad of Yemen fire a mortar at the U.S. Embassy. The shot misses the embassy, but hits nearby school killing two.

    July 9, 2008. Istanbul, Turkey. Four armed terrorists attack the U.S. Consulate. Six people are killed.

    September 17, 2008. Sana’a, Yemen. Terrorists dressed as military officials attack the U.S. Embassy with an arsenal of weapons including RPGs and detonate two car bombs. Sixteen people are killed, including an American student and her husband (they had been married for three weeks when the attack occurred). This is the second attack on this embassy in seven months.

    http://thedailybanter.com/2013/05/13-benghazis-that-occurred-on-bushs-watch-without-a-peep-from-fox-news/

    PS – this is my 7th re-entry of the reCAPTCHA. It’s unreadable most of the time… fix it… or get a new system please.

    • Robert -
      Thank you for making this point “Crystal Clear”…

      President Bush and his administration were fighting a global war on terror – Period.
      No excuses, no nothing. In every case, they went after the criminals, and took the fight to them, trying to go after them.

      The difference is that President Bush never tried to say that they were do to American action – they were done by foreign war criminals!

      I could not have encapsulated the point better than you did – thank you!!!!!

      And BTW – You act as if the issue is Fox – the issue is an administration that bows to the muslim world, lies, and does a CYA when they are covering things up.

      Join us – and have them answer the questions! Nice work!!!

  20. shawnnews

    Robert is totally correct. The whole repeating party line slur Double J makes against me shows he didn’t read any of the links I posted or see any of the comments about Obama. Blind partisanship? The lies told by Republicans are for the specific sake of attempting to smear the president’s credibility. Obama does that himself with his foot in his mouth this week. both Robert and I have demonstrated with our links that attacks on the United States installations happen every year or two. The special treatment given to Benghazi and not other attacks is what makes it a partisan scam for the Republicans to incite their club members.
    Of course, the attention was not given it the attacks on US. The a Republicans could just point to it and say they should stay in office to protect us from those dastardly terrorists. When they don’t hold the executive branch they can point to the similar attacks and claim they are looking for answers they’ve been given over and over again. Fear-based campaigning as usual.

    • NO ONE disputes the attacks hae happened – but they were due to a war on terrorism….remember the “candy crowley moment” in the debate, when the impartial moderator took sides?????

      Even you, cannot dispute that the subject changed. Al queada was “on the run”, and this dod not fit the narrative for the election. They started this BS narrative, and no one will asnwer to it. Even “madame secretary said “what does it matter”?. Of course – she is famous for taking the exact oppostie tact when it comes to republican investigations.

      You can try and slam me all you wnat – at the end of the day – this is about government accountability. Your measure as stated is “nothing sticks”. What a load of crap. They lied again, and you give them a free pass.

      Its not just me – whether its factcheck, or other organizations, they have proven their is deception and hiding. All you do is take the company line and blame fox news.

      Pretty Pathetic.

      • “NO ONE disputes the attacks hae happened – but they were due to a war on terrorism…”

        I guess that war ended when Bush left office. Now all we are left with is a war on Obama.

        It is laughable that you brush of those 13 attacks as a war on terror, but can’t shut up about Benghazi. As you would say, “Pretty Pathetic!”

  21. shawnnews

    The left really should start calling it “The Benghazi Hoax” as part of the right’s ongoing campaign to smear Obama. The right portrays him as someone who sympathizes with US enemies and rewards friends with racial handouts. This is nothing new.
    3,000 Americans killed in 9/11 — rally around Bush
    4 killed in Benghazi — impeach!
    The ravings of the right will alienate them for a generation when they should be providing a reasonable option to the Democrats. Instead either someone has to vote for the lackluster Dems or the ridiculous loons who wave flags and can’t tell the truth.
    http://www.politicususa.com/2013/11/03/gops-benghazi-hoax-exposed.html

    • I take significant exception to your “Rally Around Bush” comment about 911. He was the President, and it was never about him. It was about our country.

      At some point – can you set your Bush Derangement Syndrome aside, and talk about the current administration? The President has been in office for 5 years, and has a substantial record of his own. Even He is finally stopping the blame game of his predecessor.

      Everything that happened under Bush’s tenure was “Bush Lied, It’s Bush’s Fault, Bush caused the recession”, and on and on and on.

      Anything that happens with the current administration however, is met by :It’s not Obama’s fault, the right wing is to blame, he could not have known about the IRS, what could he have done about Bengazzi, and on and on and on – excuses.

      When will you stand up and support judging each president in the same way – and hold them to account in the same way?????

  22. The Bengazzi hoax would work – if it were not for $ DEAD Americans, and a bunch of administration ies to cover it up.

    Why don’t you just give in, and ask them the questions???
    Is that really that hard to do?
    I guess is is, when all you want is to score partisan points.
    Pathetic

    • shawnnews

      Double J you fell for the partisan fantasy I told you that Republicans use in campaigning. When the embassies and installations are attacked under republicans you guys rally around the flag. When an attack happens under the Democrats you claim that the Democrats are soft on terror or inept or whatever fits the party smear.
      The newest addition to the Benghazi hoax is a bogus witness. The Republicans didn’t go get all the people responsible any more than they got Bin Laden.

      • “Partisan fantasy that Repubs use in campaigning”.

        First of all- we all know how politics works – and your constant excuses for the left are honestly really sad. Media matters is not a clear source of truth. You may want to open your mind and expand your reading.

        All the American Public wants is answers. Why is there not a single arrest? What really happened that night? The intell hearing scheduled for Nov 11th may be quite telling, and it may not be – we will have to see.

        Clearly, you have taken the hard left line that this is a hoax, before all of the facts came out. Some of us believe we need the facts, and then we can “judge”.

        Again – why the different standard for the right than the meager standard you hold the left accountable to. All the public wants are answers. When it goes on and on like this, it smells more and more like a cover up.

        For the “most transparent administration in history”, this should be easy.

        Something smells, and its not just your hyper partisanship this time.

  23. Connie Brauer

    shawnnews – If Christopher Stevens had been your child, I don’t think you would be calling it a hoax. I think that is disrespectful for the people who lost their lives for the service of our country. Please stop calling it a hoax.

  24. shawnnews

    It is correct to call it a hoax. Not a hoax in the sense that it didn’t happen, but in the sense that the Republicans play it as if the administration has something to hide and they are trying to get to discover the “real” truth. The hoax is that they just fell for a phony “witness.” The lies about Benghazi I gave listed already
    That Obama watched people die in the situation room via live video feed
    That the administration callously watched Americans die.
    That there is a coverup because the Republicans can’t find the smoking gun info they want.
    I’d bet no one knows the names of any of the people who died in the other attacks on US installations. Stevens death is tragic but not special compared to other fallen servicemen and Americans abroad. The hoax is that the Republicans are playing his death and the others to smear Obama with crocodile tears.

    • shawn, amazing that Bush/republican era lies about Iraq’s involvement in 911 and their use to cow the congress into a submissive approval (if you’re not with us you’re with them) and the 10s of thousands of innocent Iraqi’s killed in that move as well as the American soldiers who were sacrificed (both bodies and lives) in an act of revenge against a country that had nothing to do with 911, is somehow magically legitimized by a theme that at least Bush took the war to them?

      Somehow the left’s disapproval of those lies leading us to attack a country that wasn’t behind 911 is comparable in dimension to the right’s incessant attacks on Obama and the left. It’s that petty and misguided. It’s also historical in nature as the right has never got over the lefts impeachment of Nixon and his forced resignation. To go back even further, the right has morphed into the mindset of the civil war south because they never accepted they lost. Dem vs repub, yankee vs confederate, the angst and animosity is still there. Yanks got past it, the cons never did.

      An acquaintance from the south told me in 1994, she was 50 years old before she realized damn and yankee was two words.

      • The core of the movement to go to war with Iraq was built on intelligence assessments that were shared with the democrats. Your constant use of the “bush lied” theme is a load of BS -

        Check the record, the Dems saw the same intelligence assessments. Clinton, The pathetic John Kerry (I was for the war before I was against it – a real profile in courage), the list goes on and on. In this time, they all wanted to seem “tough” as we approached an election cycle.

        There is a HUGE difference between following wrong intelligence, and intentionally misleading. You seem to only believe the other guy is capable of lies and distortion. You give your guy a free pass.

        There are 4 dead Americans, and as usual, no one is being held to account. At lease no one with a “D” after their name.

        • Oh? So we couldn’t possibly have been misled by deliberately falsified intelligence to fit the goal. Pull you head out of you know where.

          That along with the “you’re either with us or the terrorists” is awfully intimidating.

          • Oh – so again, only the right can be “misleading”???

            I think I know who needs to pull his head out of his you know what.

            I’ll tell you this, I’ll pay to have your stomach fit for a window, your head is clearly so far inserted, its the only way you may see that this administration is full of liars, and so are the supporting hacks like you. Just look at the current HC debate – Period

            We will see what happens after the 11/11 hearings – when the surviviors on the ground are finally heard.

            Maybe – just maybe, we should wait until the facts are out – I guess thats kinda tough for a hack like you….

    • People dead and no accountability.
      All people want are answers –

      To be a shill for cover-up and excuses is pathetic.

  25. Connie Brauer

    Shawn – Please don’t call dead americans a hoax, whether it be Benghazi or any other terroist attacks that took american lives. That is all I’m asking. I don’t refer to democrat or republicans in my post, I’m merely trying to have you be more respectful for people we lost that were in the service of our country. It seems in these debates whether at this level or the highest level, we have no respect for each other and morals and lying and bad behavior has become acceptable.

  26. shawnnews

    David Brock explains why there is no scandal in Benghazi and why saying there is one is a hoax. The people who should be apologizing are the congressional Republicans who have presented Benghazi as a cover-up. They are the hoaxers. To have a special affinity for Benghazi victims and no others is also puzzling. There have been many attacks against US targets whose victims haven’t gathered the sane amount of coverage or investigations.
    http://youtu.be/DT6kGEIsJnY

    • I realize you use Media Matters as your gospel truth. I think you need to consider the bias of the source. Is that too much to ask???
      David Brock is a hyper-partisan, and yes, is even more partisan than you.

  27. thehereandnow1

    Then very simple shawn, if there was no hoax then the administration should allow Congress to speak to the relevant people instead of gagging them, keeping them from talking. If you have nothing to hide you would want these people to talk, to back up your claims. But that ain’t happening is it?

    Sure, no cover up. And the administration doesn’t have definitive numbers on Obamacare either.

  28. shawnnews

    They are looking for the answers they want. Since the base had a CIA installation, good luck if you will have complete public hearings. But there are more people testifying.
    http://edition.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/politics/2013/10/31/ac-dnt-griffin-cia-benghazi-testimony.cnn.html

  29. shawnnews

    Here’s the kind of guy Darrell Issa is. If you don’t think this is a partisan fraud, I don’t know what to tell you.

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/09/20/darrell_issa_almost_successfully_trolls_democrats_for_not_caring_about_benghazi.html

  30. thehereandnow1

    I’m finding a severe case of irony here. Back during the Bush years (W that is), the libs were running rampant with stories of secret societies, conspiracies, plans for total government control. Whacko notions of Bush and Cheney being in cahoots with Haliburton in an effort to suppress the opposition. Movies were made, songs were written. Yet there was no proof whatsoever that any of this was happening. And when the libs were called on it they shot back with venom, how dare you say they were wrong. Heck, Reid and Pelosi spent the last 2 years of Bush’s second term on a snipe hunt instead of looking out for the interests of the country and its people.

    Fast forward to the current president. Drone strikes (which were thought of as so ominous and wrong in the 8 years prior) have increased; the president has even been recorded saying that when it comes to them he’s “good at killing people”. Hardly the talk of someone who mere months after assuming the office he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize solely on the basis of words he said, not actions. A terrorist attack takes place at one of our embassies, where an ambassador is murdered (the first time in 20+ years). The president, who was a casual observer at best as the attacks were happening, spends weeks putting forth the narrative that the attack was in response to 9 minute YouTube video. This, despite knowing soon after the truth. And he never admitted he was wrong, but I digress. For a year and a half after the attacks parties involved are not allowed to speak to Congressional investigators. Ask yourself, if a Republican administration did the same thing would Democrats and the liberal media not be in an uproar, claiming conspiracy and cover up? I think you know the answer, and if not, here’s a clue – Nancy Pelosi 2007-2009.

    Finally, let’s look at this disaster we call Obamacare. The democrats/liberals go out of their way to claim they are the party of true freedom. If you are anything other than a rich white male you should listen to them because Republicans only look out for the rich white guys (yet oddly enough many the higher up / well known dems and libs . Democrats are the party of freedom, Republicans are the party of control and oppression. But then you have this new health system. First, in order to even see what you would be paying you have to surrender a good deal of your personal information (if you can even get that far on their disaster of a website). By the way this information you’ve given is not adequately secured and is ripe for the hacking. You then have a choice of 4 health plans to choose from. While given the freedom of 4, each follow strict guidelines set forth by the administration, many times resulting in having to pay for coverage you would never use (a man who will never marry or a gay couple will more than likely never have to avail themselves of gynecological care or birth control pills). The president is on record close to 30 times telling the American people that if they like the doctor or health plan they currently have that they can keep it no matter what (his actual word was “period”). Yet in the first weeks of this, on only the individual side, millions of Americans are finding out that the insurance they had that was best suited for them is being cancelled because it is not good enough in the government’s eyes. Now I ask you, read over this last paragraph and then ask yourself, “What about these things rings to the tune of freedom?” For a political party that claims to be the only one looking out for people this seems like something that is incredibly controlling, as if to say, “You are not smart enough to know what’s best for you. Only government knows what is best for you.”

    Yes, I find it odd that liberals, who for 8 years droned on and on about how the Republican president was oppressing the people of America, despite the fact that they had no proof, are now silent or even supporting an administration that is actually exhibiting signs of oppression, control, and secretiveness.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>