Benghazi

[Pootus]

if the roles were reversed and there was a Republican admin in the White House, do you believe there would've been more coverage from the press or less coverage or about the same?

Recent history seems to indicate less coverage for a Republican President.

that's playing with half truths, and here's why. Liberals love to accuse Republican Presidents of just about anything, especially if they have little or no truth. Then they scream about what he is getting away with. I love the liberal rant of "what did he know and when did he know it????" That same rule does not apply to liberal presidents...its inevitably a with hunt, or the famous racist accusation.
Hell, we will never know obamas education, medical history, transcripts.....it took forever to get a half assed forged birth document from his party. You know,,,the one that shows his certificate number that is numerically lower than the twins that were born before him.

In any even the answer is a resounding no. The media is not the media it once was...look how fast they turned on Bob Woodward, their hero from the 70's!!!
Take the abortion trial in Philadelphia...lowest media coverage ever. But I bet the AP is pissed how fast their master did them dirty. But it will only be a short amount of time before they are carrying obamas koolaid once more.

[Pootus]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_attacks_on_U.S._diplomatic_facilities

12 attacks on US diplomatic facilities during Bush's term, 7 of them having at least as many deaths as Benghazi. I don't remember any of these incidents resulting in months-long media coverage trying to legitimize conspiracy theories.

Big big difference......the bush administration didn't try to white wash them.

[Pootus]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_attacks_on_U.S._diplomatic_facilities

12 attacks on US diplomatic facilities during Bush's term, 7 of them having at least as many deaths as Benghazi. I don't remember any of these incidents resulting in months-long media coverage trying to legitimize conspiracy theories.

and trusting Wikipedia for accurate information is completely silly.

[[m'kay]]

Edit your posts instead of making new ones, you're making yourself look stupid.

[Darth Crater]

and trusting Wikipedia for accurate information is completely silly.

Their sources are listed and it's all a matter of public record. Wikipedia was just a convenient, easily-searched collection of that information.

I'm done with the argument, though. Didn't realize you were a "birther." I'm just going to let that fact speak for itself.

[Yanoda]

that's playing with half truths, and here's why. Liberals love to accuse Republican Presidents of just about anything, especially if they have little or no truth. Then they scream about what he is getting away with. I love the liberal rant of "what did he know and when did he know it????" That same rule does not apply to liberal presidents...its inevitably a with hunt, or the famous racist accusation.
Hell, we will never know obamas education, medical history, transcripts.....it took forever to get a half assed forged birth document from his party. You know,,,the one that shows his certificate number that is numerically lower than the twins that were born before him.

In any even the answer is a resounding no. The media is not the media it once was...look how fast they turned on Bob Woodward, their hero from the 70's!!!
Take the abortion trial in Philadelphia...lowest media coverage ever. But I bet the AP is pissed how fast their master did them dirty. But it will only be a short amount of time before they are carrying obamas koolaid once more.

1. Chill man.
2. It seems Obama is also being accused of everything by conservatives. Quid Pro Quo.
3. I thought the birth issue/conspiracy was already done/resolved several years back.
4. We do know a lot about his education, he did release his medical history afaik and what is so important about College Transcripts? So far only Al Gore, G.W. Bush and J. Kerry had their transcripts released (only Kerry willingly released them). Afaik, the demand for Obama to release the transcripts were made when the 2-year tax return was demanded from M. Romney, which have nothing in resemblance. http://www.factcheck.org/2012/07/obamas-sealed-records/ http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/no-we- ... ys-either/
5. If you're referring to news media, then yes. American News are lacking nowadays, maybe reading some news from other countries about the same issues could give a better/objective view of the situation/news. Concerning B. Woodward, he did make several mistakes in the recent years which he even admitted. Plame Scandal and the Sequester Dispute e-mail are notable examples.
6. I read the news about the Abortion Trial on several news sites. I didn't see any low coverage on it.... and am glad that he got convicted.
7. If you're referring to the AP Investigations by the CIA: as of right now, little is known. I wouldn't jump to conclusions just yet. Holder states it is a er of National Security, I want to wait until more information is given before coming to an opinion or conclusion.

Cheers

[CommanderOtto]

5. If you're referring to news media, then yes. American News are lacking nowadays, maybe reading some news from other countries about the same issues could give a better/objective view of the situation/news.
Cheers

I would recommend CNN International and BBC. American version of CNN and fox news is pure politics 24/7 unfortunately.

[MATTHEW'S_DAD]

Man you guys are hard on Fox News. Have any of you watched anything besides Hannity and Glen Beck? Shepard Smith has a really good show at 4pm and 7pm est. Bret Baier is a pretty straight shooter from 6-6:30. 6:30-7 is opinion but it's coming from both sides.

Back to Benghazi though. You guys are probably a little lost on the problem. Most people understand the attack was probably unstoppable, some even forgive the "stand down" order. The problem is the steps taken in the middle of the election to cover this mess up. I understand the motivation, but it doesn't make it right and is demeaning to the families of those killed. I really don't care what some of you think about Bush and you what you think he did or didn't do during his time in office, it's irrelevant to this discussion. If all you have is "Bushisms" then I guess the discussion is over.

And as far as the Republicans cutting the funding which caused the Benghazi attack...
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... ested.html

[CommanderOtto]

well yeah, shepherd smith is a good section, and I enjoy watching O'Reilly... but in general, both fox and cnn in the U.S are usually about congress.

and regarding benghazi... I think it was unstoppable. There was a freakin' mob out there throwing grenades inside. And plus, a consulate can't retaliate and kill everyone out there or else the U.S would be accused of a "massacre" even if it isn't true. In those countries, making the u.s look bad is very easy even though they started it. That's a lawless country and there was not much that could have been done to prevent it I guess. In fact, that consulate shouldn't have been there in the first place.... it's almost the same as putting a consulate in the middle of Sudan. I could be wrong but I have not been very up to date on this.

[MATTHEW'S_DAD]

Bump.

This is still an issue. Americans were killed and our current administration has lied, withheld information, misled the public and just flat out covered this thing up, What is that thing that they are covering up?? It's their criminal negligence, that's what. Hilliary and Barack should be in jail for the lengths they went to to hide their incompetence.