American News Media: Independent or Biased?

sin_city

Mjollnir wrote: »

No one w/any intelligence actually can.

Proved my point....another statement/dig...backed by nothing.

Just trash talk really

Mjollnir

sin_city wrote: »

Proved my point....another statement/dig...backed by nothing.

Just trash talk really

How quaintly odd.

I've proven no point of yours, and I've only given my opinion, not dependent on anything you might have babbled or brayed, in the time you and I have been exchanging posts.

No 'trash talk', whatever that means.

Please try again, but try harder.

sin_city

Mjollnir wrote: »

How quaintly odd.

I've proven no point of yours, and I've only given my opinion, not dependent on anything you might have babbled or brayed, in the time you and I have been exchanging posts.

No 'trash talk', whatever that means.

Please try again, but try harder.

You don't understand what I mean by trash talk...How strange.

My opinion was that you were intelligent enough to get that but now my opinion is that you are dumb....

How bizarre....how bizarre.

UNI4MER

Brian? wrote: »

I don't see how anyone with any intelligence can take this "Breitbart" seriously.

Really why do you say that? The USA mainstream media which includes abc radio, most newspapers, cbs, nbc, cnn, msnbc, are all controlled by the left and get their talking points each day from the DNC and the White House. Most low information American voters get their news there and thus form their lock stop with the left opinions. Fox news, the Drudge report, Brietbart on the other hand report the news as it used to be reported as facts and, of course, are categorized as "right wing" biased. The left hides the facts and continues to bury stories about what is real news to protect their cause which is lap dogs for the Democrat Party. On the other hand the current leaders of the Republicans cannot understand why they continue to be a minority party as they keep shooting themselves in the foot by trying to be like the liberals and when most of the country leans conservative on most issues. We are a country in decline because of our slide away from our constitution and liberty and there is no current leadership to right this ship.

Jonny7

UNI4MER wrote: »

The USA mainstream media which includes abc radio, most newspapers, cbs, nbc, cnn, msnbc, are all controlled by the left

Controlled how and by whom exactly?

and get their talking points each day from the DNC and the White House.

Each day, when and how? and sources for this

PopePalpatine

UNI4MER wrote: »

On the other hand the current leaders of the Republicans cannot understand why they continue to be a minority party as they keep shooting themselves in the foot by trying to be like the liberals and when most of the country leans conservative on most issues.

How are the Republicans trying to emulate liberals?

Where is this alleged moral majority?

eire4

Amerika wrote: »

Yup. The fact that twenty-two journalists who worked for al jazeera quit in protest after being told by their bosses to support Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, kinda supports the reports. In addition other reports showing connections, including Egyptian prosecutors charging 20 al jazeera journalists with belonging to the Muslim Brotherhood lead credence to the reports.

Or are all news reports to be discounted because they don't come from al jazeera?

Well having watched Al Jazera myself I cannot say I have not noticed any pro muslin brotherhood bias myself. Not to say that there might not be a subtle or behind the scenes bias but I have not noticed any such bias having actually watched the channel myself.


As for other news reports I would say like anything the quality and veracity of any newsreports can vary depending on the source.

20Cent

You just gotta throw your hands in the air when anyone claims Fox news, the Drudge report or Brietbart as news resources. Some sort of data literacy and critical thinking needs to become part of the school curriculum or something since these fools have votes.

UNI4MER

You all should regularly visit this site:

since I am not allowed to post the link here it is manually

mrc.org

media research center

UNI4MER

Look at there stance on Illegals as just one example.

A small example of the moral majority

Sunday, April 13, 2014

More voters than ever would rather scrap the current Congress than to see it reelected. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just nine percent (9%) of Likely U.S. Voters think it would be better for the country if most incumbents were reelected this November. Seventy-two percent (72%) say it would be better if most of them were defeated instead. Nineteen percent (19%) are undecided.

Jonny7

UNI4MER wrote: »

You all should regularly visit this site:

since I am not allowed to post the link here it is manually

mrc.org

media research center

"The Leader in Documenting, Exposing and Neutralizing Liberal Media Bias"

"MRC’s sole mission is to expose and neutralize the propaganda arm of the Left: the national news media. This makes the MRC’s work unique within the conservative movement."

Oh deary deary me

sin_city

20Cent wrote: »

You just gotta throw your hands in the air when anyone claims Fox news, the Drudge report or Brietbart as news resources. Some sort of data literacy and critical thinking needs to become part of the school curriculum or something since these fools have votes.

How can you critically think about any article is you flat out disregard it as newsworthy before looking at it?


Drudge occasionally publishes Nielsen, Arbitron, or BookScan ratings, or early election exit polls that are otherwise not made available to the public.

Too bad for you, you don’t get to see this.

I am amazed to think that some people think it is only certain types of media that are biased.

Perhaps the news that seems unbiased fits the bias of a certain person.

I don’t get why people don’t look at everything and then make their mind up instead of making their mind up based on where the item comes from.

Amerika

20Cent wrote: »

You just gotta throw your hands in the air when anyone claims Fox news, the Drudge report or Brietbart as news resources. Some sort of data literacy and critical thinking needs to become part of the school curriculum or something since these fools have votes.

Looks like Fox News was right all along, that reports from the White House blaming the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi on an internet video was actually a cover up of their own policy failures. Guess you can’t have that sort of thing come out six weeks before an election now can you?

"to underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/04/29/benghazi-emails-point-at-white-house/8471737/

Don’t you just hate it when that happens?

Mjollnir

Amerika wrote: »

Looks like Fox News was right all along, that reports from the White House blaming the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi on an internet video was actually a cover up of their own policy failures. Guess you can’t have that sort of thing come out six weeks before an election now can you?

"to underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/04/29/benghazi-emails-point-at-white-house/8471737/

Don’t you just hate it when that happens?

Ah, the fetid stench of desperation.

Breaking: there's STILL no scandal involving Benghazi, no matter how hard the pathologically obsessed clench their tiny fists white in impotent rage.

Amerika

This was great this morning on MSNBC regarding the new revelations on Benghazi involving Jay Carney lying and double standards between how Republicans and Democrats are treated by the media. And the host calling out the print media hypocrisy was priceless.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/scarborough-unloads-on-co-hosts-apologizing-for-the-white-house-over-benghazi/

(watch the video at the bottom of the piece)

Jonny7

Didn't think Benghazi was actually still a thing.. what was it, 4 servicemen?

Odd how they didn't make this much noise when the predecessor sent 4,000 to their deaths on false intelligence

Amerika

Jonny7 wrote: »

Didn't think Benghazi was actually still a thing.. what was it, 4 servicemen?

Not quite, but I could understand your confusion when the media here gives far more investigative attention to 18 safety cones on a New Jersey highway than to a terrorist attack which resulted in the death of one of our ambassadors.

Mjollnir

Amerika wrote: »

Not quite, but I could understand your confusion when the media here gives far more investigative attention to 18 safety cones on a New Jersey highway than to a terrorist attack which resulted in the death of one of our ambassadors.

No, the media gave a lot of attention to Benghazi when the equivalent of show trials were being held in Congress, but it turned out there was no there there.

Why lie so transparently when you don't have to?

UNI4MER

Jonny7 wrote: »

Didn't think Benghazi was actually still a thing.. what was it, 4 servicemen?

Odd how they didn't make this much noise when the predecessor sent 4,000 to their deaths on false intelligence

Still a thing? If a conservative or Republican was in office during Benghazi how do you think the mainstream media here would cover it? What 4000 are you talking about?

sin_city

Can someone let me know more about Benghazi?

What is Washington's story and the opinion of people supporting the Washington's story?

What what is the alternative view?

Jonny7

UNI4MER wrote: »

Still a thing? If a conservative or Republican was in office during Benghazi how do you think the mainstream media here would cover it? What 4000 are you talking about?

Benghazi has nothing to do with the event, and everything to do with an opportunity to attack the other side. Opposition politics at it's very worst.

4,000 dead is Iraq

Amerika

sin_city wrote: »

Can someone let me know more about Benghazi?

What is Washington's story and the opinion of people supporting the Washington's story?

What what is the alternative view?

On the anniversary of 9/11 terrorists attacked and four Americans did die
The White House and State Department ignored Benghazi and then told us a lie

No rescue attempt was made from a missing in action commander in chief
There was a fundraiser next day and too much on his mind to consider military relief

Rice’s orders were clear to purport an obscure internet video inflamed
Cause an election was near and the president's missteps can’t be blamed

Investigations commenced by Congress in order to find out the truth
But the media's in the back pocket of Obama and wouldn’t play sleuth

Hillary takes no responsibility and said “what difference does it make”
She wants to be the next president and there's a lot at stake

A cover up appears clear but the White House still plays us as stupid
The media is Barack's propaganda to the people and continues to play Cupid

Except that is for the evil entity Fox News
Who will not stop reporting on the administration's ruse



To be continued...

sin_city

Amerika wrote: »

On the anniversary of 9/11 terrorists attacked and four Americans did die
The White House and State Department ignored Benghazi and then told us a lie

No rescue attempt was made from a missing in action commander in chief
There was a fundraiser next day and too much on his mind to consider military relief

Rice’s orders were clear to purport an obscure internet video inflamed
Cause an election was near and the president's missteps can’t be blamed

Investigations commenced by Congress in order to find out the truth
But the media's in the back pocket of Obama and wouldn’t play sleuth

Hillary takes no responsibility and said “what difference does it make”
She wants to be the next president and there's a lot at stake

A cover up appears clear but the White House still plays us as stupid
The media is Barack's propaganda to the people and continues to play Cupid

Except for Fox News
Who will report on the ruse



To be continued...

Thanks mate....what is the opposing view?

Amerika

sin_city wrote: »

Thanks mate....what is the opposing view?

To my view? I guess the opposing view would be that if you believe hard enough in fairy tales they can come true.

Jonny7

sin_city wrote: »

Thanks mate....what is the opposing view?

That the embassy was attacked by terrorists and people died, including the ambassador

There is a partisan effort to pin blame for the attack on the administration - which is why it doesn't leave the news in the US

Amerika

Jonny7 wrote: »

There is a partisan effort to pin blame for the attack on the administration - which is why it doesn't leave the news in the US

There is no effort to pin blame for the attack on the administration. The attack was a coordinated effort of terrorists, and not some spontaneous protest brought on by a youtube video. I think we all agree on that.

Now failing to provide adequate security for the facility and staff, failing to send help, covering up of the missteps of the administration, withholding and ignoring requests by Congress, and lying to the American people about the circumstances and events... well that's another thing.

20Cent

sin_city wrote: »

How can you critically think about any article is you flat out disregard it as newsworthy before looking at it?


Drudge occasionally publishes Nielsen, Arbitron, or BookScan ratings, or early election exit polls that are otherwise not made available to the public.

Too bad for you, you don’t get to see this.

I am amazed to think that some people think it is only certain types of media that are biased.

Perhaps the news that seems unbiased fits the bias of a certain person.

I don’t get why people don’t look at everything and then make their mind up instead of making their mind up based on where the item comes from.

No one is saying that in this thread.
Just take a look at the comments part of the Breitbart site not exactly the brightest sparks. Breitbart was not a serious journalist just a scammer.

sin_city

So Jonny and Amerika...you have the same story but just different interpretations of how the government behaved afterwards?

Amerika

sin_city wrote: »

So Jonny and Amerika...you have the same story but just different interpretations of how the government behaved afterwards?

Sounds about right.

Manic Moran

Amerika wrote: »

Have never bothered to watch it, and apparently just about everyone else in the US hasen't either. Has AlJazera topped more than 13,000 viewers per day yet... in a country with a 317 million population (and lets add another 30-50 million illegal immigrants just for good measure)?

It's not 'how many', it's 'who'.

In a sad reflection of the traditional US media, I'm on military duty right now, in an operations center. We've got the big screen, showing multiple news stations at once in insets around the map in the center. Guess which station we think is actually worth having the audio feed come in over the room's speaker system by default, unless we happen to see something interesting on another station?

AJ actually has news, as opposed to endless op-ed interspersed with the occasional headline reading. Plus, it's more varied than the 'traditional' US networks. It's by no means 'perfect', but it does seem to be one of the best out there.

The Black Oil

FWIW, I did see a good AJ piece on pararescuemen a few years back, but omg, bias!

I've posted here before about Fox News. It's essentially the poster child for self-serving narrative - dialling up shills, trolls, etc. And again, its opposition isn't much better. But, I don't believe ideological bias is the core problem. It's the packaging and the laziness - the loud voices and talking point orientated feeding frenzies that are sadly required to drive the broadcasters around now.

That, and the fact that the need to be first has replaced the need to be accurate. That should worry everyone regardless of your voting preferences.

Amerika

Manic Moran wrote: »

It's not 'how many', it's 'who'.

In a sad reflection of the traditional US media, I'm on military duty right now, in an operations center. We've got the big screen, showing multiple news stations at once in insets around the map in the center. Guess which station we think is actually worth having the audio feed come in over the room's speaker system by default, unless we happen to see something interesting on another station?

AJ actually has news, as opposed to endless op-ed interspersed with the occasional headline reading. Plus, it's more varied than the 'traditional' US networks. It's by no means 'perfect', but it does seem to be one of the best out there.

I would probably watch AJ at times if it were available to me. I watch news from many different sources. Although our cable provider has hundreds of channels, AJ is not one of them (neither was Current TV). Hell, they don’t even provide the Big Ten Network. But The Blaze TV (Glenn Beck) is provided... go figure (but I don't watch it). Apparently there doesn’t seem to be much of a demand for cable companies to provide AJ.

I guess if I had the gumption I could watch it over the web, but in all honesty I’d rather just peruse Al Jazerra America’s web and read the articles I find interesting.

Mjollnir

Amerika wrote: »

On the anniversary of 9/11 terrorists attacked and four Americans did die
The White House and State Department ignored Benghazi and then told us a lie

No rescue attempt was made from a missing in action commander in chief
There was a fundraiser next day and too much on his mind to consider military relief

Rice’s orders were clear to purport an obscure internet video inflamed
Cause an election was near and the president's missteps can’t be blamed

Investigations commenced by Congress in order to find out the truth
But the media's in the back pocket of Obama and wouldn’t play sleuth

Hillary takes no responsibility and said “what difference does it make”
She wants to be the next president and there's a lot at stake

A cover up appears clear but the White House still plays us as stupid
The media is Barack's propaganda to the people and continues to play Cupid

Except that is for the evil entity Fox News
Who will not stop reporting on the administration's ruse

To be continued...

Huh. What oddly transparent lies.

The facts are:

An American consulate in the middle of a chaotic former war zone was attacked and an ambassador was killed.
In the days immediately after the attack there were various accounts of what caused the event and these accounts conflicted with each other.
The Obama admin maintained (and still maintains) this was due to the situation itself, as there is usually great confusion in such instances.
The right wing maintains there was a coverup and that it was meant to keep the American people from thinking the attack was a incident of terrorism.

The reasons why no immediate rescue attempt have been widely discussed around here are easily known to anyone intellectually honest enough to care.

Carcharodon

Amerika wrote: »

On the anniversary of 9/11 terrorists attacked and four Americans did die
The White House and State Department ignored Benghazi and then told us a lie

No rescue attempt was made from a missing in action commander in chief
There was a fundraiser next day and too much on his mind to consider military relief

Rice’s orders were clear to purport an obscure internet video inflamed
Cause an election was near and the president's missteps can’t be blamed

Investigations commenced by Congress in order to find out the truth
But the media's in the back pocket of Obama and wouldn’t play sleuth

Hillary takes no responsibility and said “what difference does it make”
She wants to be the next president and there's a lot at stake

A cover up appears clear but the White House still plays us as stupid
The media is Barack's propaganda to the people and continues to play Cupid

Except that is for the evil entity Fox News
Who will not stop reporting on the administration's ruse



To be continued...

Please stop telling lies, just stop, its pathetic.

sin_city

Carcharodon wrote: »

Please stop telling lies, just stop, its pathetic.

You must have won lots of debates by making points like that Carcharodon.

Maximum respect.

Amerika

Carcharodon wrote: »

Please stop telling lies, just stop, its pathetic.

You make the claim of lies... what are the lies?

Carcharodon

sin_city wrote: »

You must have won lots of debates by making points like that Carcharodon.

Maximum respect.

I know, I know, but what else can you say at this point, people make great articulated points on here that validate their views but yet we have this persob that doesn't seem to grasp reality.
One day, people in this country will stop obsessing over power and greed, they will hopefully engage in progress, I am sure I will not live to see that day. One day their bubble will bust and they will see the world in....I don't know, reality !

Mjollnir

sin_city wrote: »

You must have won lots of debates by making points like that Carcharodon.

Maximum respect.

He/she wasn't 'making a point'; he/she made a request.

Carcharodon

Or better yet stop obsessing over benghazzi..
And maybe cnn could stop obsessing over the missing Malaysian airplane whike we are at it

Amerika

Carcharodon wrote: »

Or better yet stop obsessing over benghazzi..

It seems you might have bought into a well-orchestrated strategy by the Obama administration to controversialize the Benghazi tragedy and it's aftermath, according to former CBS News reporter Sharyl Attkisson. Attkisson was an investigative correspondent formerly in the Washington bureau for CBS News and a substitute anchor for the CBS Evening News. She resigned from CBS News on March 10, 2014 and according to Wiki: “…Attkisson resigned from CBS News, reportedly due to frustration over what she perceived to be the network's liberal bias and lack of dedication to investigative reporting, as well as issues she had with the network’s corporate partners.”

The former CBS reporter said that she believes there is a concerted effort to delegitimize investigations into that deadly 2012 attack orchestrated by people close to the White House.

Some highlights from a recent interview she gave:

“The key words they use, such as ‘conspiracy’ and ‘delusional,’ are in my opinion clearly designed to try to controversialize a story — a legitimate news story and a legitimate area of journalistic inquiry”

“To some degree, that’s successful,” she added. “But I think primarily among those that don’t want to look at this as a story in the first place.”

“I see that as a well-orchestrated strategy to controversialize a story they really don’t want to hear about”

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/attkisson-theres-a-%E2%80%98well-orchestrated-strategy-to-controversialize%E2%80%99-benghazi/

Mjollnir

Amerika wrote: »

It seems you might have bought into a well-orchestrated strategy by the Obama administration to controversialize the Benghazi tragedy and it's aftermath, according to former CBS News reporter Sharyl Attkisson. Attkisson was an investigative correspondent formerly in the Washington bureau for CBS News and a substitute anchor for the CBS Evening News. She resigned from CBS News on March 10, 2014 and according to Wiki: “…Attkisson resigned from CBS News, reportedly due to frustration over what she perceived to be the network's liberal bias and lack of dedication to investigative reporting, as well as issues she had with the network’s corporate partners.”



Some highlights from a recent interview she gave:



http://www.mediaite.com/tv/attkisson-theres-a-%E2%80%98well-orchestrated-strategy-to-controversialize%E2%80%99-benghazi/

Everything's topsy-turvy in Upside Down Land!

Jonny7

Amerika wrote: »

It seems you might have bought into a well-orchestrated strategy by the Obama administration to controversialize the Benghazi tragedy and it's aftermath, according to former CBS News reporter Sharyl Attkisson. Attkisson was an investigative correspondent formerly in the Washington bureau for CBS News and a substitute anchor for the CBS Evening News. She resigned from CBS News on March 10, 2014 and according to Wiki: “…Attkisson resigned from CBS News, reportedly due to frustration over what she perceived to be the network's liberal bias and lack of dedication to investigative reporting, as well as issues she had with the network’s corporate partners.”

Some highlights from a recent interview she gave:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/attkisson-theres-a-%E2%80%98well-orchestrated-strategy-to-controversialize%E2%80%99-benghazi/

What information does she bring to light that we don't already know exactly?

We all pretty much knew about a few days after the attack that it had nothing to do with the anti-Islam film or wasn't a 911 protest as was initially thought

Amerika

Jonny7 wrote: »

What information does she bring to light that we don't already know exactly?

We all pretty much knew about a few days after the attack that it had nothing to do with the anti-Islam film or wasn't a 911 protest as was initially thought

She brings an investigative journalist's reaction to new events surrounding Benghazi. Something the media may no longer be able to ignore for the most part. Specifically in regards to recently released White House emails which had to be obtained through a freedom of information suit, a 7 page email on how to deal with the media investigating Benghazi that the White House is refusing to turn over. And add to that The State Department’s disregard for its legal obligations to Congress.

I guess we’ll have to keep an eye out what the new committee headed by Trey Gowdy uncovers through its authority, if they can get through all the stonewalling from the Obama administration quickly, and finally get to the root of all the facts in regard to Benghazi.

Also, according to a recent Rassmussen poll (if you are of mind to give polls credence) shows that 51% now think Benghazi merits further Investigation, and 34% disagree.

Additionally:

“Seventy-two percent continue to believe that it is important to find out exactly what happened in the Benghazi matter, with 46 percent who say it is ‘Very Important.’ Twenty-five percent consider more information about the Benghazi case unimportant, up from 19 percent in January, but that includes just 7 percent who say it is ‘Not At All Important,’” said Rasmussen.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/april_20142/51_think_benghazi_merits_further_investigation_34_disagree

Or is a potential cover-up by the White House and State Department, right before a presidential election, not worthy of attention because they were successful in hiding their actions for two years?

20Cent

Obama should have resigned after Bengazi like Regan did after the Beruit bombings and Bush after 911.

Jonny7

A potential cover-up of what exactly?

"We're sorry, we weren't prepared for 150 heavily armed jihadists to storm a diplomatic mission in a third world country we just helped liberate"

I don't remember the incumbents rushing to fall on their swords when the Twin Towers were hit - nor do I remember a similar partisan witch-hunt after

Amerika

20Cent wrote: »

Obama should have resigned after Bengazi like Regan did after the Beruit bombings and Bush after 911.

So I’m guessing whataboutery is okay as long as it comes from you?

And I think you’re missing the point here. The point that the media have been lax in their investigative journalistic responsibilities in the matter, which has helped the Obama administration and the State Department in stonewalling and avoiding their responsibilities to Congress, because there was little pressure from the public. It has been said often enough (see the video from MSNBC I provided earlier as an example) that if this type of thing regarding Benghazi would have been done by a republican administration, it would be front page news… ad nauseum.

20Cent

Amerika wrote: »

So I’m guessing whataboutery is okay as long as it comes from you?

And I think you’re missing the point here. The point that the media have been lax in their investigative journalistic responsibilities in the matter, which has helped the Obama administration and the State Department in stonewalling and avoiding their responsibilities to Congress, because there was little pressure from the public. It has been said often enough (see the video from MSNBC I provided earlier as an example) that if this type of thing regarding Benghazi would have been done by a republican administration, it would be front page news… ad nauseum.

So what exactly do you thinkis being hidden about Benghazi and to what end?

Amerika

20Cent wrote: »

So what exactly do you thinkis being hidden about Benghazi and to what end?

I’d like the media to do their jobs and work on finding out many unanswered questions regarding Benghazi, and raise public interest so the people should demand from the administration the truth... which I'm sure will lead to new questions. Here’s a few:

Why didn’t Benghazi have adequate security personnel?

Why didn’t the Administration comprehend what was going on, and refuse to send help, when the military said they could have sent help?

The Defense Department officials believed almost immediately the violence in Benghazi was a terrorist attack, so why did US Ambassador Susan Rice for days afterward insist that the attack was the result of a protest over a video?

Why did the White House fail to issue the latest emails until they were served under the freedom of information act when they said they released everything, and how many more exist that haven’t been released?

Why were CIA agents threatened if they testified?

Who collaborated in the Benghazi talking points, who else was involved, and why?

Where were President Obama and Hillary Clinton and what were they doing during the attacks and what were their recommendations?

20Cent

Amerika wrote: »

I’d like the media to do their jobs and work on finding out many unanswered questions regarding Benghazi, and raise public interest so the people should demand from the administration the truth... which I'm sure will lead to new questions. Here’s a few:

Why didn’t Benghazi have adequate security personnel?

Why didn’t the Administration comprehend what was going on, and refuse to send help, when the military said they could have sent help?

The Defense Department officials believed almost immediately the violence in Benghazi was a terrorist attack, so why did US Ambassador Susan Rice for days afterward insist that the attack was the result of a protest over a video?

Why did the White House fail to issue the latest emails until they were served under the freedom of information act when they said they released everything, and how many more exist that haven’t been released?

Why were CIA agents threatened if they testified?

Who collaborated in the Benghazi talking points, who else was involved, and why?

Where were President Obama and Hillary Clinton and what were they doing during the attacks and what were their recommendations?

Was going to reply to each question they have been answered many times but it seems nothing will satisfy those who believe this conspiracy theory.

sin_city

Jonny7 wrote: »

A potential cover-up of what exactly?

"We're sorry, we weren't prepared for 150 heavily armed jihadists to storm a diplomatic mission in a third world country we just helped liberate"

I don't remember the incumbents rushing to fall on their swords when the Twin Towers were hit - nor do I remember a similar partisan witch-hunt after

For different reasons I am of the leaning as you on this.

I don't really care about Benghazi as being news.

Is it such a huge revelation that the US government might lie?

For sure this would not be one of the biggest of them.