Republicans, please explain the Behghazi outrage to me

[Incorruptible]

Such a troll, whining over getting what you wanted, which was Rice out of the running for SoS....

I suppose you wanted a pony with that, and Obama's resignation, too...

The whole thing has devolved into sour grapes whining by Righties whose fluffed up "scandal" turned out not to be much of a scandal, just another tragedy they failed to exploit to its fullest.

So just ignore the murder of 4 innocent Americans and the scandal. How typical of the lefitsts, care more about idiotic ideology than the lives of Americans

 

[Bowfinger]

I disagree, if it would have happened under a Republican administration we would have been deluged with media investigations instead of the minor dribble we got.

Really? Prove it. There were 12 attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities during the Bush 43 administration; 7 during Reagan's terms. There were 154 people killed in these attacks. (Wikipedia list) Kindly show us how the mainstream media raised anywhere near the same level of hysteria we got from Fox and its ilk.

I won't wait up.

 

[monovillage]

Really? Prove it. There were 12 attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities during the Bush 43 administration; 7 during Reagan's terms. There were 154 people killed in these attacks. (Wikipedia list) Kindly show us how the mainstream media raised anywhere near the same level of hysteria we got from Fox and its ilk.

I won't wait up.

Don't.

 

[HomerJS]

So just ignore the murder of 4 innocent Americans and the scandal. How typical of the lefitsts, care more about idiotic ideology than the lives of Americans

Despite your chemical imbalance nobody has said or suggested their deaths should be ignored.

Funnny how St Reagan is still such a hero after 241 Marines were killed in Lebanon.

More selective outrage.

 

[Incorruptible]

Despite your chemical imbalance nobody has said or suggested their deaths should be ignored.

Funnny how St Reagan is still such a hero after 241 Marines were killed in Lebanon.

More selective outrage.

So then why not get to the bottom of what happened and why aren't the people responsible for this facing justice

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Don't.

Well, that settles the matter nicely. Thanks, Bowfinger.

 

[randomrogue]

I check in on this thread occasionally to see what is going on. So far I have learned nothing. I don't understand the hysteria at all. Controversy not found.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I don't understand the hysteria at all. Controversy not found.

Have you watched the behavior of the Republican Party over the last four years?

That's pretty much all you need to know to understand the hysteria.

 

[Pens1566]

I check in on this thread occasionally to see what is going on. So far I have learned nothing. I don't understand the hysteria at all. Controversy not found.

That's just it. Rational people don't.

 

[thraashman]

So then why not get to the bottom of what happened and why aren't the people responsible for this facing justice

Well the people responsible for this haven't been caught yet. Once caught they will face justice.

 

[Incorruptible]

Well the people responsible for this haven't been caught yet. Once caught they will face justice.

I was talking about them and the people in the administration that are responsible for this. They all need to face justice.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

That's just it. Rational people don't.

Oh, it's entirely rational. Just incredibly cynical.

 

[monovillage]

Well, that settles the matter nicely. Thanks, Bowfinger.

Q. There were 4 or 5 other attacks on embassies during Obama's term, why aren't we discussing them? A. Because they didn't have the same major fuck-ups of policy and security as Benghazi and don't fit the criteria of massive blunder that Benghazi was.

Bow also cites a small and incomplete wiki reference and demands that I search at length through the records to find media responses from 5 to 12 years ago. It was a bullshit demand just like it's a bullshit cheering blurb from you.

 

[monovillage]

I check in on this thread occasionally to see what is going on. So far I have learned nothing. I don't understand the hysteria at all. Controversy not found.

What's your opinion of the CIA running a secret war in Libya and may be the reason the Benghazi ambassador was targeted and killed? If it was the case do you think that the administration should have provided extra security to the area?

 

[monovillage]

Oh, it's entirely rational. Just incredibly cynical.

The same can be said for intellectual dishonesty you are so aptly demonstrating in this thread. Congratulations on the achievement.

 

[kage69]

Really? Prove it. There were 12 attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities during the Bush 43 administration; 7 during Reagan's terms. There were 154 people killed in these attacks. (Wikipedia list) Kindly show us how the mainstream media raised anywhere near the same level of hysteria we got from Fox and its ilk.

I won't wait up.

lol

Hey look! Mono getting bitchslapped AGAIN, doesn't have the integrity to admit it, then accuses others of intellectual dishonesty!

Where have I seen this again and again and again? Hmm

 

[hal2kilo]

Despite your chemical imbalance nobody has said or suggested their deaths should be ignored.

Funnny how St Reagan is still such a hero after 241 Marines were killed in Lebanon.

More selective outrage.

+:thumbsup:

 

[monovillage]

lol

Hey look! Mono getting bitchslapped AGAIN, doesn't have the integrity to admit it, then accuses others of intellectual dishonesty!

Where have I seen this again and again and again? Hmm

In your imagination?
Of course you can look to the numerous references in this thread to President Reagan and Lebanon, something that happened 30 years ago as a further example of the outrage directed at Republicans from the left while a major fuck-up committed by Obama is excused and stonewalled just months after it happened.

 

[Bowfinger]

Q. There were 4 or 5 other attacks on embassies during Obama's term, why aren't we discussing them? A. Because they didn't have the same major fuck-ups of policy and security as Benghazi and don't fit the criteria of massive blunder that Benghazi was.

Bow also cites a small and incomplete wiki reference and demands that I search at length through the records to find media responses from 5 to 12 years ago. It was a bullshit demand just like it's a bullshit cheering blurb from you.

No, sweetie, I'm just challenging you to provide factual support for your BS claim:

... if it would have happened under a Republican administration we would have been deluged with media investigations ...

If so, if we would truly have been "deluged" with the same tripe Fox fed its faithful followers about Benghazi, it should be trivially easy for you to find and post such examples. After all, they would be a "deluge" according to you. Your refusal to do so, in my opinion, is a perfect metaphor for the overall Benghazi "issue": empty partisan rage supported by nothing except a compulsion to attack Obama. There is no "there" there; it's all emotional raging, devoid of substance and reason. In short, you, Fox, and all the other screeching haters are all hat, no cattle.

Four Americans died in an unprovoked attack. Yes, as is always the case, mistakes were made and there are things we could have done better to reduce our exposure. It is an imperfect world, however, and resources are limited. So, we learn from those mistakes and try to do better. It certainly appears the Obama administration is doing exactly that. The bottom line remains that it wasn't Obama who killed those Americans, and the outrage directed at Obama is purely partisan in nature. Intelligent, reasoning Americans understand that rage should be directed instead at the terrorists who attacked us.

 

[monovillage]

I don't usually respond to you Bowfinger because you're a nasty little troll much like your political opposite Cybrsage. (now gone forever) Having years of experience with your style and lies I find it better just to ignore what you post.

 

[Bowfinger]

I don't usually respond to you Bowfinger because you're a nasty little troll much like your political opposite Cybrsage. (now gone forever) Having years of experience with your style and lies I find it better just to ignore what you post.

In other words, once again you cannot provide factual support for your claims. Got it.

 

[kage69]

In your imagination?
Of course you can look to the numerous references in this thread to President Reagan and Lebanon, something that happened 30 years ago as a further example of the outrage directed at Republicans from the left while a major fuck-up committed by Obama is excused and stonewalled just months after it happened.

My god you are pathetic!

Why would I need to resort to imagination when there are pages upon pages stored on this site detailing your commitment to partisan ignorance? I'd link some threads, but it's really a waste of time. The posters here are well aware of your MO, and you've proven to me in the past that citing your own posts from other threads is useless as you refuse to address them, much in the same way you are refusing to address Bow's rather poignant and accurate rebuttal of your bullshit.

I went through the whole thread again. You and your ilk are failing miserably, and looking like hypocritical fools in the process. Time to move on and pick a new issue to embarrass yourself with.

Kudos for making me laugh pretty good at the end there though. It's not everyday I see someone post a doozy like "I don't usually respond to you Bowfinger because you're a nasty little troll much like your political opposite Cybrsage."

Heh. Spoken like the cherry-picking brat you are. I guess in your world being proven wrong doesn't count if you take exception to being proven wrong in the past?

 

[monovillage]

blah, blah, blah, i'll talk about anything to avoid discussing Obama and Benghazi. blah, blah, blah

Yeah and that's why this thread has been screwed up, because the partisan Democrats don't even talk about Benghazi, they only attack whoever posts on the subject and say "nothing to see here, move along" or "The one and only reason the GOP keeps going on about it is because they think it is somehow going to hurt Obama. " Which even the poster of that quote knows is pure partisan bullshit.

If the left won't permit or allow an honest debate on major screw-ups by this administration then don't be surprised at have nasty, rancorous threads.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Benghazi_attack

Allegations of media bias
Some have argued that the mainstream media have ignored or played down the significance of the Benghazi story; and some have also pointed to an alleged liberal bias, claiming that, if a Republican were president, there would have been much more critical and aggressive reporting.[16][173][174][175][176][177][178][179][180][181]

On the last weekend of October a message posted on Facebook by a Political Action Committee (SOS PAC) claiming President Obama denied them backup in Benghazi was taken down twice by the social networking site. After the post was removed and SOS’s Facebook account suspended for 24 hours, the post was reinstated and SOS received an email from Facebook apologizing for the matter.[182]

Syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer argued on Fox News' channel's Special Report with Bret Baier on October 24, “This is really a journalistic scandal. I mean, the fact there was not a word about any of this in the [New York] Times or the [Washington] Post today.” Krauthammer was referring to recently released emails that proved that the White House, contrary to its assertions, knew of terrorist connections to the attack almost immediately.[183]

The National Review argued that, on October 28 (less than 2 weeks before the presidential election), of the five Sunday news shows, only Fox News treated it as a major story. It argued that on the other four news shows, the issue came up only when Republicans mentioned it.[184] On NBC's Meet the Press, host David Gregory changed the subject when a guest tried to bring up the subject of the Benghazi attack, saying, "Let's get to Libya a little bit later." Gregory never did get back to Benghazi.[184][185]

A November 2, 2012 article in The Huffington Post detailed how The Associated Press, The New York Times, and The Washington Post held back information about the attack at the request of the CIA and the Obama administration.[186] The media organizations held back information at the government's request that the two former SEALs killed in the attack (Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty) were working for the CIA.

On November 26, 2012, journalist Tom Ricks went on Fox News' Happening Now with Jon Scott to discuss the attack. While being interviewed on Fox News by Jon Scott, Ricks accused Fox News of being "extremely political" in its coverage of the attack and said that "Fox was operating as a wing of the Republican Party." Ricks accused the network of covering the story more than it needed to be. The interview was cut short and Ricks and the interview was not mentioned or covered by Fox News again. Fox News was subsequently criticized for cutting the interview short.[187][188] Jon Scott was also criticized by Media Matters for America for making no mention of the interview on Fox News Watch, a media analysis program he hosts.[189][190] In an interview with the Associated Press, Fox News' White House correspondent Ed Henry suggested that he thought Benghazi was being covered too much by the network. Henry said, “We’ve had the proper emphasis, but I would not be so deluded to say that some of our shows, some of our commentators, have covered it more than it needed to be covered.”[191][192]

 

[Bowfinger]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Benghazi_attack

Allegations of media bias
Some have argued that the mainstream media have ignored or played down the significance of the Benghazi story; and some have also pointed to an alleged liberal bias, claiming that, if a Republican were president, there would have been much more critical and aggressive reporting.[16][173][174][175][176][177][178][179][180][181]

On the last weekend of October a message posted on Facebook by a Political Action Committee (SOS PAC) claiming President Obama denied them backup in Benghazi was taken down twice by the social networking site. After the post was removed and SOS’s Facebook account suspended for 24 hours, the post was reinstated and SOS received an email from Facebook apologizing for the matter.[182]

Syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer argued on Fox News' channel's Special Report with Bret Baier on October 24, “This is really a journalistic scandal. I mean, the fact there was not a word about any of this in the [New York] Times or the [Washington] Post today.” Krauthammer was referring to recently released emails that proved that the White House, contrary to its assertions, knew of terrorist connections to the attack almost immediately.[183]

The National Review argued that, on October 28 (less than 2 weeks before the presidential election), of the five Sunday news shows, only Fox News treated it as a major story. It argued that on the other four news shows, the issue came up only when Republicans mentioned it.[184] On NBC's Meet the Press, host David Gregory changed the subject when a guest tried to bring up the subject of the Benghazi attack, saying, "Let's get to Libya a little bit later." Gregory never did get back to Benghazi.[184][185]

A November 2, 2012 article in The Huffington Post detailed how The Associated Press, The New York Times, and The Washington Post held back information about the attack at the request of the CIA and the Obama administration.[186] The media organizations held back information at the government's request that the two former SEALs killed in the attack (Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty) were working for the CIA.

On November 26, 2012, journalist Tom Ricks went on Fox News' Happening Now with Jon Scott to discuss the attack. While being interviewed on Fox News by Jon Scott, Ricks accused Fox News of being "extremely political" in its coverage of the attack and said that "Fox was operating as a wing of the Republican Party." Ricks accused the network of covering the story more than it needed to be. The interview was cut short and Ricks and the interview was not mentioned or covered by Fox News again. Fox News was subsequently criticized for cutting the interview short.[187][188] Jon Scott was also criticized by Media Matters for America for making no mention of the interview on Fox News Watch, a media analysis program he hosts.[189][190] In an interview with the Associated Press, Fox News' White House correspondent Ed Henry suggested that he thought Benghazi was being covered too much by the network. Henry said, “We’ve had the proper emphasis, but I would not be so deluded to say that some of our shows, some of our commentators, have covered it more than it needed to be covered.”[191][192]

You left out one key part:

The neutrality of this section is disputed. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (December 2012)

But that aside, what point are you hoping to make? I believe we all understand there are countless allegations of bias ... on both sides. Allegations are not proof, however.