venturer9 Loc: Newton, Il.

http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2014/05/03/The-mainstream-media-is-Obama-s-first-and-last-hope-on-Benghazi

I wanted to put up the URL first so that the Closed Minded Liberals on the Forums would have a chance to NOT read anything by accident. We certainly would not want a mind opened to some truth.... so YOU ARE WARNED...

Mike

Beercat Loc: Central Coast of California

Just think of all the differences that would of happened if Obumer had not been gifted a 2nd term by the media ........

No Obamacare 8-)

Bangee5 Loc: Louisiana

We all know that this Administration is lying, no - cover up the truth, no different than Watergate Cover up. The Media was against Nixon then but for Obama now.

Peter-S

From the author:

"I'd fault Speaker Boehner for being so slow to launch a serious investigation"

So why is it the previous investagation(s) by the house weren't serious? Why were they conducted and what were you doing when you conducted them?

"Ideology led them to swallow the Spontaneous Video Protest crap, because they really believed Obama's twaddle about a "decimated" al-Qaeda "on the run" in 2012, and because the idea that freedom of speech must be curtailed to avoid hurting Muslim sensibilities is ideologically agreeable to the Left."

Libya was still in an unstable state when the attacks occurred so why would a terrorist attack, killing only 4 Americas, be something that would merit covering up? This isn't like 911 happened all over again where warnings were issued, and ignored, then 3000 Americans died...is it! Nor is it like Iraq where 4,500 Americans died and tens of thousands were maimed based purely on a fallacy spun by the Bush Administration. Now that was a true scandal!

"They've made their peace with Islamist supremacy, at least for the time being; they think only knuckle-dragging "Duck Dynasty" rubes are seriously interested in prophet-slandering."

Well at least we can agree on something--conservatives are knuckle draggers but when you go off on a ideological based tirade that makes sense only to you, you soon loose your reader...just a warning.

"And of course, in newsrooms coast-to-coast, none of them wanted to believe in the truth of Benghazi.”

Ok, say we acquiesce to conservative “truth” on Benghazi we are still looking at a scandal the size of a gnat on an elephants butt compared to Bush’s blunders. If this isn’t a partisan witch hunt why was Bush given a pass by conservatives when so many more American’s died because of his mistakes and pure deceit?

...and the rest is too much tripe to merit comment.

Bangee5 Loc: Louisiana

Welcome to the "Cover-Up" Club. You sound no different than the Obama Administration trying to hide the truth by putting a spin on what really happen. By now you are saying, "Four dead Americans, what does it matter"?

Peter-S

No, I am saying if 4 are so important why aren't conservatives truely outraged by 7500 plus?

Bangee5 Loc: Louisiana

Why are you out raged by your Democratic Congress who OKed the War. By the way, you know way to little about that war to even give an opinion. Found out what really happen. Why did Saddam say he would not give up his weapons. What Saddam said and did caused that war. Check it out yourself.

I remember watching Saddam on TV and saying, Man, you just opened a can of whoop-ass!

x2b8d Loc: Hiding from the NSA

Minor point--don't confuse "truth" with "facts". While truth can be personal (what is true for me may not be true for you), facts exist independently, whether we accept them or not. In other words, you may be entitled to your own "truths", but you are not entitled to your own facts.

The goal of the House Select Committee on Benghazi is to uncover the facts about what happened the awful night, both in Benghazi and in the White House. Where was the President while this attack unfolded? Why was he never in the White House Situation Room? Where was the Secretary of State? What did she do after she talked with Greg Hicks at 8 pm EDT. Why did the White House insist on spinning the YouTube yarn when everyone on the ground in Libya was telling them otherwise? Why was the Special Ops team in Croatia ordered to stand down? Who gave the order?

These are legitimate questions that deserve factual answers, whether one hails from left or right of the political spectrum.

Richard Nixon got into a heap of trouble for encouraging aides to interfere with and obstruct an investigation. Investigation into what?--a misdemeanor breaking and entering in which nothing was damaged and nothing was stolen. For this petty crime, multiple White House aides were threatened by Judge john Sirica with life imprisonment if they did not reveal fully and truthfully everything they knew about the crime and ensuing coverup. Recall Senator Sam Ervin's famous question at the beginning of Watergate hearings: "What did the President know and when did he know it?"

"...we are still looking at a scandal the size of a gnat on an elephants butt compared to Bush’s blunders."

A scandal is much different than a blunder. The more appropriate comparison would be to compare Benghazi to Watergate. Which scandal do you think was/is worse?

dljen Loc: Central PA

I'm glad UHH is not representative of feelings outside this forum. This is a minority who are still butt hurt because the black guy won.

Bangee5 Loc: Louisiana

That takes on a tone of racism. Give it up. No one cares about the color of his skin but you! :thumbdown:

Beercat Loc: Central Coast of California

Your a broken record with your racism .......

dljen Loc: Central PA

The truth hurts...

Beercat Loc: Central Coast of California

Glad you see it ........... racism is hurtful, we will pray for you, hope your hurting doesn't last long .....

Peter-S

Facts manipulated to suppport a preconceived truth are meaningless.



Relivance? What's important is whether the president was informend and kept up todate on events not where he was when being informed.



And if it was a terrorist attack? What changes?



Were they ordered to stand down? Both a January 2014 Senate Committee on Intelligence review and the The House Armed Services Committee report, released February 11, state that no stand down orders were given. You are the one talking about facts and you seem to be ignoring them!



You have yet to show a scandal. At the time Libya was one of the most unstable areas of the world. Why would it surprise or matter if this was a terrorist attack? Only the right would see this as a failure (and to them any outcome would be a failure) so why would Obama try to coverup, for political purposes, something that only a minority of far right conservatives see as a weakness? Why create a scandal where none existed?

hfb Loc: Northwestern Louisiana

If the Repubs had an electable nominee Obama would not have won either time. A real nominee that could get a majority of the votes is the only real answer for you wackos. To blame anything else is wacko. I think the koch brothers intend to have Hillary Clinton win in 2016.