Tom Ricks disses Fox News for coverage of Benghazi attacks

[flyboy56]

Ricks is one of the leading authorities on contemporary military matters out there if that's who you are referring to. I have no idea what his affiliation is other than trying to get it accurate. No doubt Fox insults his professionalism.

I wasn't referring to Ricks Zenwalker. I was referring to your comment concerning the gun.

[zenwalk]

The only edit that was made by the White House and also by the State Department was to change the word ‘consulate’ to the word ‘diplomatic facility,’ since the facility in Benghazi was not formally a consulate. Alright I'm confused. Where is the conspiracy in this?

Rice gets her notes on Benghazi from the CIA. Now what do you do? Form your own fact-finding committee, fly to Libya, spend weeks investigating before issuing a statement? Petraeus has resigned. What more should be done? Seriously.

[soulflower]

Ricks is one of the leading authorities on contemporary military matters out there if that's who you are referring to. I have no idea what his affiliation is other than trying to get it accurate. No doubt Fox insults his professionalism.

He's not a Lefty but he obviously doesn't think very highly of Fox News

[zenwalk]

I wasn't referring to Ricks Zenwalker. I was referring to your comment concerning the gun.

I don't like guns being sold to morons but I'm okay with the second amendment.

[soulflower]

Rice was the errand girl for the disinformation crew. It's the WH that has to come up with the answers for why they were still dissembling two weeks after everyone knew it was a terror attack. As for Fox, they were the only ones taking the story seriously. MSNBC, and Matthews especially, were gobbling down the administration pabulum with glee.

Fox stuck with the Cover-up angle for far too long. Even after it was clear that the coverup story had no legs and the CIA was the source of the confusing information for obvious reasons.

[veritas]

Fox stuck with the Cover-up angle for far too long. Even after it was clear that the coverup story had no legs and the CIA was the source of the confusing information for obvious reasons.

Regardless of the source, the WH had to come clean on it. To go around insisting on the spontaneous demonstration nonsense more than a day or two was an insult to everyone's intelligence. The CIA may have deleted references to al qaeda but that is a different issue. The WH stuck with the video thing well beyond what was plausible. If they really thought, two weeks later, that the video was responsible for the attack, then they should have been deemed either dishonest or incompetent and turned out of office.

[flyboy56]

Rice gets her notes on Benghazi from the CIA. Now what do you do? Form your own fact-finding committee, fly to Libya, spend weeks investigating before issuing a statement? Petraeus has resigned. What more should be done? Seriously.

Well actually the CIA works for the NIA. So the report the CIA turned in went to the NIA first. There are times when the Director of CIA can report directly to the President without consulting the DNIA. Seems to me the President would have wanted first hand knowledge of just who did kill one of his Ambassadors. And if in fact he did get the report directly from the CIA, why even send Rice on a fools errand? Were they trying to confuse the terrorists or the Americans, or both?

[zenwalk]

Fox's raison d'etre is to incite old people to keep their slice of the advertising dollar. Period. It's a political propaganda rag masquerading as a supermarket tabloid. Young people watch Fox for the laughs if they watch it all. Fox is barely competent at regurgitating cut and pasted talking points.

[flyboy56]

Changes to the CIA report were made by the NIA with the approval of the CIA and FBI.

[veritas]

Fox's raison d'etre is to incite old people to keep their slice of the advertising dollar. Period. It's a political propaganda rag masquerading as a supermarket tabloid. Young people watch Fox for the laughs if they watch it all. Fox is barely competent at regurgitating cut and pasted talking points.

They're no worse than MSNBC. Chris Matthews was practically crying tears of rage after the first debate and screaming "What's he DOING?" referring to Obama. Then he said that "We could show him how to do it. We have our knives out here." Of course, he means they have them out for conservatives and Republicans. Then, after Obama won and he could stop soiling himself, he says how thankful he is for Sandy as that took Romney out of the news. Yes, he's so in thrall to Obama that people dying and losing their homes is a small price to pay to keep him in office. Please don't ever think MSNBC and most of the rest of the MSM aren't wholly in the bag for Obama. This is hardly arguable.

[flyboy56]

Oh, and the WH did a great job in confusing everyone in congress who should have been told during the first closed door meeting with the actual facts provided by the CIA and not the watered down edited facts by the NIA. But they were told it was a video that caused protestors to riot.

[soulflower]

Regardless of the source, the WH had to come clean on it. To go around insisting on the spontaneous demonstration nonsense more than a day or two was an insult to everyone's intelligence.

Even before the WH mentioned it, thousands of news articles around the world reported a demonstration in Benghazi prior to the attack. Plus there were demonstrations at the US embassy in Egypt. So it was hardly insulting to anyone's intelligence for the intelligence folks to think that there may in fact have been a demonstration prior to the attacks.

According to witnesses, there was no demonstration but the same witnesses also claim that the militants were angry over the the prophet being insulted by that video.

The CIA may have deleted references to al qaeda but that is a different issue. The WH stuck with the video thing well beyond what was plausible.

There's witness accounts from people in Benghazi plus Libyan militants claiming that the video was atleast one of their motives if not the most important issue(there's also the issue of the US trying to help the Libyan gov't disarm the Libyan militants). There are news articles in the independent media as well supporting the likelihood that the attackers were incited by the video.

If they really thought, two weeks later, that the video was responsible for the attack, then they should have been deemed either dishonest or incompetent and turned out of office.

To this day, the CIA still thinks the video played a role. It hasn't been ruled out as far as I know...

[veritas]

Even before the WH mentioned it, thousands of news articles around the world reported a demonstration in Benghazi prior to the attack. Plus there were demonstrations at the US embassy in Egypt. So it was hardly insulting to anyone's intelligence for the intelligence folks to think that there may in fact have been a demonstration prior to the attacks.

According to witnesses, there was no demonstration but the same witnesses also claim that the militants were angry over the the prophet being insulted by that video.



There's witness accounts from people in Benghazi plus Libyan militants claiming that the video was atleast one of their motives if not the most important issue. There are news articles in the independent media as well supporting the likelihood that the attackers were incited by the video.



To this day, the CIA still thinks the video played a role. It hasn't been ruled out as far as I know...

Coordinated nighttime attacks in two locations (including the CIA Annex) with heavy mortars and RPG's? Sorry, that's a planned terror attack to coincide with the 9/11 anniversary. End of story.

[flyboy56]

You are missing the point people! It's not about the video or what actually instigated the attack! It's about the actual attackers. They weren't protesters! They were trained terrorists!

[Mom49of4]

You are missing the point people! It's not about the video or what actually instigated the attack! It's about the actual attackers. They weren't protesters! They were trained terrorists!

Thank you and al qaeda is not on the run.

[soulflower]

Coordinated nighttime attacks in two locations (including the CIA Annex) with heavy mortars and RPG's? Sorry, that's a planned terror attack to coincide with the 9/11 anniversary. End of story.

According to Gen. Petraeus, the first attack that killed the ambassador was "not" coordinated but the second attack was.

6hrs after the first attack, the second attack happened. It's not implausible that both attacks required very little advanced planning given the availability of heavy weapons in Libya and the fact that the CIA exposed the location of their base in Benghazi when they came to the rescue of the Americans in the Consulate.

As far as 9/11 goes, while 9/11 is significant to us, tragedy on the scale of 9/11 has happened far more frequently in places like Libya, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. It's just another day to them.

[soulflower]

You are missing the point people! It's not about the video or what actually instigated the attack! It's about the actual attackers. They weren't protesters! They were trained terrorists!

Most likely, they were the same folks we gave weapons to in the war against Gadaffi...

[flyboy56]

That would be "Diplomatic Facility." Maybe if I say it enough times I will start to see how that plays into your CIA conspiracy theory soulflower.

[flyboy56]

Most likely, they were the same folks we gave weapons to in the war against Gadaffi...

I guess Obama should do a better job at picking friends.

[flyboy56]

Thank you and al qaeda is not on the run.

Now that is easy to see how it just would not play into the Obama campaign slogan of "GM is Alive and Osama is dead."