Today, as the rest of the country digested the news that the NBA banned LA Clippers owner Donald Sterling for life, fined him $2.5 million and would work to force him to sell the team, Fox News spent a few minutes discussing it before moving on to a “Fox News Alert” with inconsequential news about Benghazi.
As the time stamps show in the video, host Gretchen Carlson cut into the NBA’s press conference at 2:24 ET for analysis from her guests. At 2:32, she ended that discussion for the Fox News Alert on Benghazi “and how the president and his administration handled it - including newly uncovered documents about who coordinated the official response that we heard from then-U.N. ambassador Susan Rice, those talking points. So do these new documents now lead directly to the White House?”
Well, yes, but as Fox surely knows, that doesn’t matter because Rice never said anything untrue. As Media Matters reported:
In his twenty paragraph email advising Rice on her upcoming TV appearances, (Deputy National Security Advisor Ben) Rhodes made only two direct references to Benghazi—first highlighting support from the Libyan government for U.S. diplomatic efforts in the country, and later debunking the false claim that there was any “actionable intelligence” prior to the attack on the facility in Benghazi and stating that “the currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US Consulate and subsequently its annex.” That language is identical to the initial draft of the separate set of CIA talking points that were crafted by CIA analysts earlier that day, suggesting that Rhodes had seen that early document and was using it to ensure the administration's statements were consistent with the intelligence community's conclusions.
But Carlson not only breathlessly reported this as an “amazing” development, she excitedly brought up the IRS scandal.
After that she moved on to the missing Malaysian jet.
Racism may be dead to Fox News but their dogged determination to exploit the Benghazi tragedy lives forever. Or at least until Hillary Clinton is no longer a threat to the GOP.
Do you like this post?
Tom Berger commented
2014-05-07 08:12:54 -0400
· Flag
Cairo was all about the jihadists wanting to get back the Blind Sheikh, not about some stupid video.
The administration even lied about the Cairo, there was no “protest” going on there about a video. When Benghazi comes up, the administration is like, hey, let’s blame the Cairo “protests” on this video. You have to ask yourself, Why? “Because the media and the public, have bought hook, line, and sinker the fraudulent claim that those “protests” were over the anti-Muslim video. The administration calculated that if you buy “Blame the Video” as the explanation for Cairo, it becomes much more plausible that you will “Blame the Video” as the explanation for Benghazi, or, at the very least, you will give the administration the benefit of the doubt that they could truly have believed the video triggered Benghazi, despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary.”
Weeks before September 11, 2012, the jihadists wanted to screw with the U.S. embassy in Cairo. The Blind Sheikh’s son wanted to kick the embassy ass, snatch up the Americans and do a trade for their BFF, Blind Sheikh. Other jihadists threatened to burn the embassy to the ground and it was reported in the Egyptian press the day before the September 11 “protests.” Again, Cairo rioting was driven by the jihadists who were pissed and wanted the Blind Sheikh’s release. The jihadists have been threatening for weeks to raid the embassy.
Al Qaeda’s expansion into Egypt was the cause of these rioting’s. The rioting was a pro al qaida from the beginning. There has been at least three other senior al Qaeda-linked jihadists who helped the “protest”: Tawfiq Al ‘Afani, ‘Adel Shehato, and Rifai Ahmed Taha Musa. Al ‘Afani and Shehato, all are longtime EIJ ideologues and leaders. These guys are all BFF’s with the Blind Sheikh, Obama bin laden and Ayman al Zawahiri.
Tom Joscelyn was right, “The video fraud enabled the administration and Obama’s reelection campaign to stay on offense – aggressively pummeling the strawman of “Islamophobia” – rather than in the defensive crouch required to explain, or try to explain, the Obama administration’s performance in Egypt, Libya, and the broader Middle East. It worked: The Romney campaign was cowed and accountability for the Benghazi massacre would have to wait many months.”
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2014/02/al_qaedas_expansion.php
The administration even lied about the Cairo, there was no “protest” going on there about a video. When Benghazi comes up, the administration is like, hey, let’s blame the Cairo “protests” on this video. You have to ask yourself, Why? “Because the media and the public, have bought hook, line, and sinker the fraudulent claim that those “protests” were over the anti-Muslim video. The administration calculated that if you buy “Blame the Video” as the explanation for Cairo, it becomes much more plausible that you will “Blame the Video” as the explanation for Benghazi, or, at the very least, you will give the administration the benefit of the doubt that they could truly have believed the video triggered Benghazi, despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary.”
Weeks before September 11, 2012, the jihadists wanted to screw with the U.S. embassy in Cairo. The Blind Sheikh’s son wanted to kick the embassy ass, snatch up the Americans and do a trade for their BFF, Blind Sheikh. Other jihadists threatened to burn the embassy to the ground and it was reported in the Egyptian press the day before the September 11 “protests.” Again, Cairo rioting was driven by the jihadists who were pissed and wanted the Blind Sheikh’s release. The jihadists have been threatening for weeks to raid the embassy.
Al Qaeda’s expansion into Egypt was the cause of these rioting’s. The rioting was a pro al qaida from the beginning. There has been at least three other senior al Qaeda-linked jihadists who helped the “protest”: Tawfiq Al ‘Afani, ‘Adel Shehato, and Rifai Ahmed Taha Musa. Al ‘Afani and Shehato, all are longtime EIJ ideologues and leaders. These guys are all BFF’s with the Blind Sheikh, Obama bin laden and Ayman al Zawahiri.
Tom Joscelyn was right, “The video fraud enabled the administration and Obama’s reelection campaign to stay on offense – aggressively pummeling the strawman of “Islamophobia” – rather than in the defensive crouch required to explain, or try to explain, the Obama administration’s performance in Egypt, Libya, and the broader Middle East. It worked: The Romney campaign was cowed and accountability for the Benghazi massacre would have to wait many months.”
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2014/02/al_qaedas_expansion.php
Tom Berger commented
2014-05-02 08:45:29 -0400
· Flag
You say "It was found to be the promised attack afterwards as in later the same day, and that the publicly delivered state of intel was found officially to be false on September 14th.
So that means the blaming the video was false and it was a terrorist attack?
Just trying to clarify that statement. Thanks
So that means the blaming the video was false and it was a terrorist attack?
Just trying to clarify that statement. Thanks
Aria Prescott commented
2014-05-01 17:04:22 -0400
· Flag
“No, I don’t want to talk about comparisons, the “both sides do it” argument is really inane.”
How strange… That was literally your only argument up until this point, and you wanted to do a comparison until I said, “OK, let’s do a comparison where we can look at how Fox News covered it!”
You could have picked something else Fox was there for, but it was suddenly “I don’t wanna!” at that point. Fancy that.
Oh, and kudos on how well you dodged every other point I made in that post. Fox News cheered on rioting, while ignoring it? Irrelevant. Fox News protected the free speech of the man who his hate speech started said rioting? Irrelevant. Fox News incorporated the White House caring about the rioting because the video was made by an American, and actually prompted a dangerous image of the US into their conspiracy? Irrelevant.
The attack was thought to be part of, or masked as the rioting when Carney, Clinton, and President Obama made their statements. It was found to be the promised attack afterwards as in later the same day, and that the publicly delivered state of intel was found officially to be false on September 14th. But there was still the issue of how to deal with the makers of the videos without creating a can of worms that would compromise the 1st Amendment, which was why it was still being talked about.
You really need to stop trying to present facts that go against your narrative as facts that support it, Tom. The initial statements were made on bad intel, which was quickly corrected. Your approach is to take Emails about the rioting, and try to make them into a smoking gun, even though one of the first Emails say “We have debunked the original assessment. Correct the record, and provide input on next course of action.”
Seriously, Tom- I know you’re seventeen, but It’s right there, in no uncertain terms.
How strange… That was literally your only argument up until this point, and you wanted to do a comparison until I said, “OK, let’s do a comparison where we can look at how Fox News covered it!”
You could have picked something else Fox was there for, but it was suddenly “I don’t wanna!” at that point. Fancy that.
Oh, and kudos on how well you dodged every other point I made in that post. Fox News cheered on rioting, while ignoring it? Irrelevant. Fox News protected the free speech of the man who his hate speech started said rioting? Irrelevant. Fox News incorporated the White House caring about the rioting because the video was made by an American, and actually prompted a dangerous image of the US into their conspiracy? Irrelevant.
The attack was thought to be part of, or masked as the rioting when Carney, Clinton, and President Obama made their statements. It was found to be the promised attack afterwards as in later the same day, and that the publicly delivered state of intel was found officially to be false on September 14th. But there was still the issue of how to deal with the makers of the videos without creating a can of worms that would compromise the 1st Amendment, which was why it was still being talked about.
You really need to stop trying to present facts that go against your narrative as facts that support it, Tom. The initial statements were made on bad intel, which was quickly corrected. Your approach is to take Emails about the rioting, and try to make them into a smoking gun, even though one of the first Emails say “We have debunked the original assessment. Correct the record, and provide input on next course of action.”
Seriously, Tom- I know you’re seventeen, but It’s right there, in no uncertain terms.
Tom Berger commented
2014-05-01 14:10:40 -0400
· Flag
The people were lied to by Susan Rice and Jay Carney, the administrations credibility about Benghazi has been GREATLY reduced.
No, I don’t want to talk about comparisons, the “both sides do it” argument is really inane.
Quote: “In addition a document showed Susan Rice was informed before her TV appearance: “Responding to a question about whether it was an organized terror attack, Toria said that she couldn’t speak to the identity of the perpetrators but that it was clearly a complex attack.” Toria refers to Victoria Nuland, then State Department spokeswoman and now assistant secretary for Europe and Eurasia. She had been unfairly maligned in some quarters and falsely accused of participating in the illicit editing of the talking points. These documents exonerate her entirely, pointing the finger directly at the White House and the CIA. (It is noteworthy that in the days between the attack and Rice’s TV outing, Nuland never tied the video to the attack; Carney did, most clearly on Sept. 14.) With regard to the CIA:
Quote: “Now we know the Obama White House’s chief concern about the Benghazi attack was making sure that President Obama looked good,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “And these documents undermine the Obama administration’s narrative that it thought the Benghazi attack had something to do with protests or an Internet video. Given the explosive material in these documents, it is no surprise that we had to go to federal court to pry them loose from the Obama State Department.”
Here’s the timeline
11:15 a.m.: The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence,* having asked for talking points, gets a draft from the CIA’s Office of Terrorism Analysis. It starts with this line, the one that would undo Susan Rice during her run through the Sunday shows: “We believe based on currently available information that the attacks in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. consulate and subsequently its annex.”
12:23 p.m.: The CIA’s office of general counsel adds a line about the “inspired by the protests” theory being inconclusive.
3:04 p.m.: The talking points are sent to relevant White House aides, including Ben Rhodes.
4:42 p.m.: The CIA circulates new talking points but removes a mention of al Qaida.
6:21 p.m.: The White House (Tommy Vietor, not Ben Rhodes) ads a line about the administration warning, on September 10, of social media reports calling for demonstrations.
7:39 p.m.: State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland objects to some of the language because “the penultimate point could be abused by members to beat the State Department for not paying attention to Agency warnings.”
8:09 p.m.: Ben Rhodes sends the “smoking gun” email, nine hours after the first draft of talking points from the CIA said that the attacks grew out of a demonstration.
Then you have Jay Carney up there spewing more lies in response to these documents. His answer to Jon Karl was ridiculous, “the email wasn’t produced because it wasn’t about Benghazi, but rather about conditions in the Arab world generally. What a load, the email does talk about what’s going on in the middle east, but the documents relate most “specifically” to Benghazi. Even the FOIA request for Rhodes emails was VERY EXPLICITLY about Benghazi
ABC said “the questions remain about what sparked the violence – a controversial anti Islamic film, or a planned attack by al-Qaida militants?” Which was it, a planned attack by terrorists, or a protest over an internet video? David Plouffe and Dan Pfeiffer, Jay Carney (he was one of the email recipients) got together so they can “prep” Rice to lie in response to that question. Jay Carney saying it was the CIA that created the talking points that Susan Rice was using, was an outright lie.” These documents weren’t voluntarily disclosed, these documents where held back, it all came to light when Judicaial watch had to sue the administration, to get it.
In summary, Susan Rice lied, and mislead the public and that was dishonest. The administrations credibility is shot. Jay Carney was blathering about “it wasn’t about Benghazi” a bold face lie. Carney’s pants must be made from asbestos.
Sources
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2014/04/29/benghazi-scandal-tied-to-white-house/
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-benghazi-documents-point-white-house-misleading-talking-points/
bemused
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/04/29/benghazi-emails-point-at-white-house/8471737/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/29/email-ensuring-obama-looked-good-was-post-benghazi/
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/14/press-briefing-press-secretary-jay-carney-9142012
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/04/30/benghazi-rhodes-emails-lead-to-more-questions/8527705/
No, I don’t want to talk about comparisons, the “both sides do it” argument is really inane.
Quote: “In addition a document showed Susan Rice was informed before her TV appearance: “Responding to a question about whether it was an organized terror attack, Toria said that she couldn’t speak to the identity of the perpetrators but that it was clearly a complex attack.” Toria refers to Victoria Nuland, then State Department spokeswoman and now assistant secretary for Europe and Eurasia. She had been unfairly maligned in some quarters and falsely accused of participating in the illicit editing of the talking points. These documents exonerate her entirely, pointing the finger directly at the White House and the CIA. (It is noteworthy that in the days between the attack and Rice’s TV outing, Nuland never tied the video to the attack; Carney did, most clearly on Sept. 14.) With regard to the CIA:
Quote: “Now we know the Obama White House’s chief concern about the Benghazi attack was making sure that President Obama looked good,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “And these documents undermine the Obama administration’s narrative that it thought the Benghazi attack had something to do with protests or an Internet video. Given the explosive material in these documents, it is no surprise that we had to go to federal court to pry them loose from the Obama State Department.”
Here’s the timeline
11:15 a.m.: The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence,* having asked for talking points, gets a draft from the CIA’s Office of Terrorism Analysis. It starts with this line, the one that would undo Susan Rice during her run through the Sunday shows: “We believe based on currently available information that the attacks in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. consulate and subsequently its annex.”
12:23 p.m.: The CIA’s office of general counsel adds a line about the “inspired by the protests” theory being inconclusive.
3:04 p.m.: The talking points are sent to relevant White House aides, including Ben Rhodes.
4:42 p.m.: The CIA circulates new talking points but removes a mention of al Qaida.
6:21 p.m.: The White House (Tommy Vietor, not Ben Rhodes) ads a line about the administration warning, on September 10, of social media reports calling for demonstrations.
7:39 p.m.: State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland objects to some of the language because “the penultimate point could be abused by members to beat the State Department for not paying attention to Agency warnings.”
8:09 p.m.: Ben Rhodes sends the “smoking gun” email, nine hours after the first draft of talking points from the CIA said that the attacks grew out of a demonstration.
Then you have Jay Carney up there spewing more lies in response to these documents. His answer to Jon Karl was ridiculous, “the email wasn’t produced because it wasn’t about Benghazi, but rather about conditions in the Arab world generally. What a load, the email does talk about what’s going on in the middle east, but the documents relate most “specifically” to Benghazi. Even the FOIA request for Rhodes emails was VERY EXPLICITLY about Benghazi
ABC said “the questions remain about what sparked the violence – a controversial anti Islamic film, or a planned attack by al-Qaida militants?” Which was it, a planned attack by terrorists, or a protest over an internet video? David Plouffe and Dan Pfeiffer, Jay Carney (he was one of the email recipients) got together so they can “prep” Rice to lie in response to that question. Jay Carney saying it was the CIA that created the talking points that Susan Rice was using, was an outright lie.” These documents weren’t voluntarily disclosed, these documents where held back, it all came to light when Judicaial watch had to sue the administration, to get it.
In summary, Susan Rice lied, and mislead the public and that was dishonest. The administrations credibility is shot. Jay Carney was blathering about “it wasn’t about Benghazi” a bold face lie. Carney’s pants must be made from asbestos.
Sources
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2014/04/29/benghazi-scandal-tied-to-white-house/
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-benghazi-documents-point-white-house-misleading-talking-points/
bemused
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/04/29/benghazi-emails-point-at-white-house/8471737/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/29/email-ensuring-obama-looked-good-was-post-benghazi/
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/14/press-briefing-press-secretary-jay-carney-9142012
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/04/30/benghazi-rhodes-emails-lead-to-more-questions/8527705/
Aria Prescott commented
2014-05-01 00:59:46 -0400
· Flag
So, lemme get this straight, Tom… We’re expected to believe that there’s a cover-up in Benghazi, based on that the initial report said the attack was believed to be planned in advance, but using rioting as a smokescreen?
And we’re supposed to come to this conclusion because further investigation said “No riot, it was all attackers.” that was released after the statement…
Why not just say it’s a cover-up because Obama didn’t use the words “terrorist attack?”. Oh, wait… In case you forgot, let’s review how Fox News covered both the theory, and the revelation that there was global rioting: They defended the person who released the hate speech video it was over. That was their only goal… To protect the hate speech, while trying to make a conspiracy out of Obama’s wording.
You wanna talk comparisons and parallels? Let’s try one from when Fox News was around: Remember when Bush pressed for a case to blame 9/11 on Saddam Hussein, even after being shot down on that? How much did Fox News have to say about that? Anything at all? Oh, right- That was perfectly OK with that. Everyone else was skeptical, Fox News was screaming “SUPPORT YOUR PRESIDENT!”, something they doubled down on when Bush’s intel started coming up snake eyes.
So, why was it OK for Bush to not accuse the wrong party, and actually start forcing a case for it instead of dropping an eliminated theory? But not OK for Obama to mention a theory involving “The Innocence of Muslims” that actually was held by the intelligence community, and was dropped two days later, when further investigation debunked it?
I think you said you’re only seventeen somewhere, so I’m gonna cut you a little slack, but lemme give you some advice on how this kind of unobjective tunnel vision plays in the real world: It doesn’t. This is maybe the third thread where you didn’t even pretend you had an interest in the other side of the story, and for someone who’s trying to play both sides equal? That’s extremely harmful to your case.
And we’re supposed to come to this conclusion because further investigation said “No riot, it was all attackers.” that was released after the statement…
Why not just say it’s a cover-up because Obama didn’t use the words “terrorist attack?”. Oh, wait… In case you forgot, let’s review how Fox News covered both the theory, and the revelation that there was global rioting: They defended the person who released the hate speech video it was over. That was their only goal… To protect the hate speech, while trying to make a conspiracy out of Obama’s wording.
You wanna talk comparisons and parallels? Let’s try one from when Fox News was around: Remember when Bush pressed for a case to blame 9/11 on Saddam Hussein, even after being shot down on that? How much did Fox News have to say about that? Anything at all? Oh, right- That was perfectly OK with that. Everyone else was skeptical, Fox News was screaming “SUPPORT YOUR PRESIDENT!”, something they doubled down on when Bush’s intel started coming up snake eyes.
So, why was it OK for Bush to not accuse the wrong party, and actually start forcing a case for it instead of dropping an eliminated theory? But not OK for Obama to mention a theory involving “The Innocence of Muslims” that actually was held by the intelligence community, and was dropped two days later, when further investigation debunked it?
I think you said you’re only seventeen somewhere, so I’m gonna cut you a little slack, but lemme give you some advice on how this kind of unobjective tunnel vision plays in the real world: It doesn’t. This is maybe the third thread where you didn’t even pretend you had an interest in the other side of the story, and for someone who’s trying to play both sides equal? That’s extremely harmful to your case.
Tom Berger commented
2014-04-30 10:45:33 -0400
· Flag
“To underscore that these protests are rooted in [an] Internet video, and not a broader failure [of] policy.”
http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/1919_production-4-17-14.pdf#page=14
http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/1919_production-4-17-14.pdf#page=14
Janet Hawkins commented
2014-04-30 09:26:18 -0400
· Flag
AVisitor 55 Sorry, I just realized that you were referring to the boldface in Ellen’s article.
Well, here is a link to the email itself rather than a characterization of what it said.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/1919_production-4-17-14.pdf#page=14
The pertinent info starts at page 14.
Well, here is a link to the email itself rather than a characterization of what it said.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/1919_production-4-17-14.pdf#page=14
The pertinent info starts at page 14.
Tom Berger commented
2014-04-30 09:17:31 -0400
· Flag
I read this article from usa today.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/04/29/benghazi-emails-point-at-white-house/8471737/
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/04/29/benghazi-emails-point-at-white-house/8471737/
Janet Hawkins commented
2014-04-30 09:15:19 -0400
· Flag
@visitor 55 Your comment, though interesting, has made assumptions and ascribed to me certain beliefs that I neither stated nor believe.
Additionally you are quite firm in your belief that “And as much as the mindless FoxGOPTV sheep want to believe that the IRS, “under direct command” from President Obama or ACORN or some other boogieman, targeted teabagger groups, that’s false too.”
As I pointed out earlier in 1972 there was absolutely no proof of Nixon’s dangerous actions and strong dismissive denials up and down his Admin of any possible wrongdoing by Nixon and if, IF, anything at all had happened it was born and died with unimportant underlings. The American public was not only disinterested they considered those allegations laughable and Nixon road to his second term in the largest defeat in our history.
I lived through it and in my personal experience serious abuse at the Presidential level is not only possible but it can be very effectively covered up and dismissed because of the very power that makes it so dangerous to us. It can, and has happened, in our era and not some land long ago and far far away.
Based on my own life experiences I know what can happen and want both these allegations and all that they encompass thoroughly, comprehensively covered and investigated. That is what prompted my original comment/question about the reaction to the coverage, which was brief at that point.
Additionally you are quite firm in your belief that “And as much as the mindless FoxGOPTV sheep want to believe that the IRS, “under direct command” from President Obama or ACORN or some other boogieman, targeted teabagger groups, that’s false too.”
As I pointed out earlier in 1972 there was absolutely no proof of Nixon’s dangerous actions and strong dismissive denials up and down his Admin of any possible wrongdoing by Nixon and if, IF, anything at all had happened it was born and died with unimportant underlings. The American public was not only disinterested they considered those allegations laughable and Nixon road to his second term in the largest defeat in our history.
I lived through it and in my personal experience serious abuse at the Presidential level is not only possible but it can be very effectively covered up and dismissed because of the very power that makes it so dangerous to us. It can, and has happened, in our era and not some land long ago and far far away.
Based on my own life experiences I know what can happen and want both these allegations and all that they encompass thoroughly, comprehensively covered and investigated. That is what prompted my original comment/question about the reaction to the coverage, which was brief at that point.
Tom Berger commented
2014-04-30 08:57:42 -0400
· Flag
These emails is proof that the Obama administration bounced the blame away from the White House to the video, they didn’t want this coming out before the 2012 election.
Jay Carney has always been saying that everything is coming from the CIA, from intelligence, that is now, complete false, not true. Since these emails have come out in the open it makes you think, what was the cause of the attack if it wasn’t the video? It’s a good possibility the MSM will not look into this, because they have to protect the Obama administration.
@visitor55, this exposes a cover up of a cover up. It was edited when the documents were asked for, and it was only revealed by a court order. This is telling you that this is a classic cover up of a cover up. Not to mention, that is a major F up.
Jay Carney has always been saying that everything is coming from the CIA, from intelligence, that is now, complete false, not true. Since these emails have come out in the open it makes you think, what was the cause of the attack if it wasn’t the video? It’s a good possibility the MSM will not look into this, because they have to protect the Obama administration.
@visitor55, this exposes a cover up of a cover up. It was edited when the documents were asked for, and it was only revealed by a court order. This is telling you that this is a classic cover up of a cover up. Not to mention, that is a major F up.
Janet Hawkins commented
2014-04-30 08:15:51 -0400
· Flag
Thank you both Aria and Bob but you both begged the questions I raised. My questions were not based on the relative merits of prior Administrations’ “scandals” or what has or has not been proven with respect to them. Neither was it regarding the relative merits of any investigations. If you remember the American public was initially more than disinterested in Watergate; so disinterested, in fact, that they reelected Nixon in a landslide before forcing him to resign
I asked, first, what world view makes news about a jerk and an anachronistic sorry excuse of an essentially private man so important? So important that new, pertinent revelations about possible wrongdoing within President Obama’s very inner circle and a very high ranking official in the IRS that could potentially lead to the President himself? I reached that conclusion about Bob Sterling based on FOX’s heavy coverage on every show I watched from the very beginning of the release of those tapes.
Second, I reiterated what I saw of Gretchen Carlson’s coverage, which I considered quite adequate, and asked what was so lacking in her and FOX’s coverage that interspersing short pieces related to the President into that coverage was so unreasonable that Ellen devoted an article to it?
Granted my third question was couched in the form of an admittedly snarky format. But isn’t that the very nature of civil discourse about differences of opinion? Which leads to the third question I asked, what would it take for FOX’s coverage of Bob Sterling to be considered appropriate. What are those parameters?
Thanks.
I asked, first, what world view makes news about a jerk and an anachronistic sorry excuse of an essentially private man so important? So important that new, pertinent revelations about possible wrongdoing within President Obama’s very inner circle and a very high ranking official in the IRS that could potentially lead to the President himself? I reached that conclusion about Bob Sterling based on FOX’s heavy coverage on every show I watched from the very beginning of the release of those tapes.
Second, I reiterated what I saw of Gretchen Carlson’s coverage, which I considered quite adequate, and asked what was so lacking in her and FOX’s coverage that interspersing short pieces related to the President into that coverage was so unreasonable that Ellen devoted an article to it?
Granted my third question was couched in the form of an admittedly snarky format. But isn’t that the very nature of civil discourse about differences of opinion? Which leads to the third question I asked, what would it take for FOX’s coverage of Bob Sterling to be considered appropriate. What are those parameters?
Thanks.
Aria Prescott commented
2014-04-30 03:15:40 -0400
· Flag
Not only that, but they held hearings for Clinton and Holder, and found that both of them were cleared. Issa held his own witch hunt series of retrials, and couldn’t find fault with it.
Same with the IRS hearings- They were cleared in a court of law, so the Republicans tried again, and admitted there was no wrongdoing…
But Fox kept telling anyone who would listen there was.
Same with the IRS hearings- They were cleared in a court of law, so the Republicans tried again, and admitted there was no wrongdoing…
But Fox kept telling anyone who would listen there was.
Bob Roberts commented
2014-04-30 02:19:02 -0400
· Flag
@ Janet Hawkins……it just that over 99% of Americans do not believe there was any misuse of power or coverup regarding what happened in Benghazi. One of the main talking points has been debunked numerous times….Susan Rice said what was accepted as the explanation at the time according to the CIA and forwarded by the CIA who had an office at Benghazi. I don’t need to go into any more defense of what happened because only the most virulent Tea Baggers and Obama haters will not accept what every top official has said, instead they will continue to believe there is some coverup. And those same people will not believe that Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz did not lie repeatedly to get this country to back the war in Iraq on lies and false intelligence. Faux is only covering the Sterling mess because they went whole hog on praising Cliven Bundy as the new George Washington and are trying to cover and save their asses because he turned out to be a typical Tea Bagging racist.
Ellen followed this page
2014-04-29 23:11:00 -0400
Janet Hawkins commented
2014-04-29 22:21:31 -0400
· Flag
I would really like someone to explain to me the political philosophy, or world view, that considers news of a possible cover up about the actions of very very high ranking White House advisers and news about the possible gross misuse of power within the very powerful IRS as less important than the rantings of an anachronistic essentially unknown to the vast majority of us?
Also, did you fail to notice the long interviews about Mr Sterling with guests before the news conference and the uninterrupted coverage of the Commissioners statement and at least 4 or 5 questions from reporters? If I remember correctly Gretchen also returned to Sterling later on in her show.
Is your real complaint that the only way FOX would have adequate coverage, in your mind, is if it had been wall to wall except for proclaiming O’Bama’s stellar achievements due to his brilliant foreign policy successes recently?
Also, did you fail to notice the long interviews about Mr Sterling with guests before the news conference and the uninterrupted coverage of the Commissioners statement and at least 4 or 5 questions from reporters? If I remember correctly Gretchen also returned to Sterling later on in her show.
Is your real complaint that the only way FOX would have adequate coverage, in your mind, is if it had been wall to wall except for proclaiming O’Bama’s stellar achievements due to his brilliant foreign policy successes recently?
Ellen followed this page
2014-04-29 21:32:06 -0400
Charlie riggs commented
2014-04-29 18:52:51 -0400
· Flag
Donald Sterling Tokowitz, donor to Democrat campaigns.
doors17 commented
2014-04-29 17:25:51 -0400
· Flag
I like turtles. They’re far more interesting that Fox discussing their sexual fantasies about Benghazi and the IRS.
Joe Clarke commented
2014-04-29 16:47:55 -0400
· Flag
I’m not interested that much in Sterling. Benghazi and IRS much more important. You are “hatist” for hating Fox News
NewsHounds
posted
about Fox News Interrupts Sterling Coverage For Benghazi And IRS
on NewsHounds' Facebook page
2014-04-29 16:40:15 -0400
Racism may be dead to Fox News but their exploitation of the Benghazi tragedy will live forever... or at least until Hillary Clinton is no longer a threat to the GOP.
