Showing posts with label lara logan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label lara logan. Show all posts

Thursday, January 2, 2014

Best Political Moments of 2013


Some of my favorite political videos from the past year.



Marco Rubio: A Thirst for Glory


Jim Carrey Sings "Cold Dead Hand" to #NRA



Reporter Dana Bash Tries to Catch Michele Bachmann
  via gfln tumblr

photo tumblr_mjz0j2wA651qzlc1ro1_500.gif

Michele Bachmann: Repeal Obamacare or it will Kill Us


CNN anchors Feel Sorry for Steubenville Rapists



Grover Norquist at CPAC: GOP traitors are "Rat Heads in a Coke Bottle"



Tennessee State Senator Stacey Campfield Calls Child a "Prop"



Rand Paul Offers to Fire Hillary Over Benghazi



President Obama Calls Benghazi Flap a "Sideshow"



Glenn Beck: "Today I declare Myself a Rodeo Clown"



Ted Cruz Mis-Explains Green Eggs and Ham During Filibuster



Saturday Night Live Mocks Toronto Mayor Rob Ford and
60 Minutes Benghazi Reporter Lara Logan



Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, December 29, 2013

NY Times Debunks #Benghazi ~ Pop! Go the Tea Party Heads

photo 18f20e1a-494c-4b31-8744-06b86d5de5bb.jpg

Previous Related Posts:
Lara Logan and the Bogus 60 Minutes Benghazi Report
The Benghazi Political Circus
Benghazi Been-There-Done-That
Hillary Kicks Butt on Benghazi

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The New York Times published the real story behind the Benghazi attack and Tea Party heads are 'splodin' all over the Right. They just can't let go of their favorite conspiracy theory, that all of this was either orchestrated by Al Qaeda and approved by Obama, or that Obama and Hillary and Susan Rice conspired to "ignore" the death and destruction. Either Obama did nothing, or Obama is a mastermind! Whatever - nothing can change the Tea Party minds!

From "A Deadly Mix in Benghazi" by David D. Kirkpatrick in The New York Times
Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault.
. . . Fifteen months after Mr. Stevens’s death, the question of responsibility remains a searing issue in Washington, framed by two contradictory story lines.

One has it that the video, which was posted on YouTube, inspired spontaneous street protests that got out of hand. This version, based on early intelligence reports, was initially offered publicly by Susan E. Rice, who is now Mr. Obama’s national security adviser.

The other, favored by Republicans, holds that Mr. Stevens died in a carefully planned assault by Al Qaeda to mark the anniversary of its strike on the United States 11 years before. Republicans have accused the Obama administration of covering up evidence of Al Qaeda’s role to avoid undermining the president’s claim that the group has been decimated, in part because of the raid that killed Osama bin Laden.

The investigation by The Times shows that the reality in Benghazi was different, and murkier, than either of those story lines suggests. Benghazi was not infiltrated by Al Qaeda, but nonetheless contained grave local threats to American interests. The attack does not appear to have been meticulously planned, but neither was it spontaneous or without warning signs.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

. . . they didn't talk to the people on the ground who were doing the fighting and shooting and the intelligence gathering. When you put that volume of information, I think it proves that story is just not accurate.
. . . I find the timing odd. I don't want to speculate on why they might do it, but I can tell you that the information that's being presented in a way that we heard before ... through the [committee] investigation [we] have been able to determine [it] is not accurate in its portrayal.
~ Rep. Mike Rogers R-Michigan, Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

We have seen no evidence that the video was widely seen in Benghazi, a very isolated area, or that it was a leading cause. What we do know is that September 11 [the date of the 2012 attack] was not an accident. These are terrorist groups, some of them linked to or ... self-claimed as al-Qaeda linked. ... Before I go on, I wanted to make a very good point that [reporter David D. Kirkpatrick] put out. Look, it is not about al-Qaeda as the only terrorist organization.
. . . There was a group there that was involved that's linked to al-Qaeda. What we never said -- and I didn't have security look behind the door, that's for other members of Congress. ... Those sources and methods I've never claimed. What I have claimed, and rightfully so, is Ambassador Stevens [who was killed in the attack] and others alerted, well in advance, that they had a security threat.
~ Rep. Darrell Issa, R-California, Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, leading GOP critic of the Obama Administration, Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice





If Times reporter David Kirkpatrick truly found “no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the [Benghazi] assault,” this must be because he spent little effort to uncover any.
~ Paul Mirengoff on Powerline Blog

N.Y. Times serves up baloney on Benghazi
Hit-piece 'investigation' parrots discredited talking points
~ Headline on World Net Daily

COME ON...Please, It is more than misleading information on Benghazi...It is Out & Out Lies. Rice still sticks to her story and never removed, only sifted to another Branch of Government to continue her support of Obama and His Muslim Brotherhood membership. I am so Furious, I could spit 44 Cal bullets from my mouth. Obama, Biden, Rice, Clinton, Jarret, Pelosi, Reid and even Numb-Nut Bone Head Boehner should be held for Treason.
~ Ltjg on World Net Daily

There needs to be a spontaneous attack on the NY Times fueled by their insulting lies. Kill em all and burn it to the ground.
~ Captain Crunch on The Blaze



More BS lies from the times, the paper of record for communist bastards worldwide. This lie that the act of war was caused by a video seen by a few people is cover for the vile prog Clinton’s run in 16. The regime was involved in arming terrorists and an AmeriKan ambassador and three other men were murdered and this regimes response is……………… nothing? That alone tells you the Marxist regime in DC preferred those men’s deaths because the criminal acts of the regime dies with those men. BHO and all members of this regime involved in the Benghazi cover up should be in prison for life, vile bastards the lot of em.
~ Progressive Slayer on The Blaze

Is there a more trustworthy source? Such as The National Enquirer?
~ Smokey_Bojangles on The Blaze

the NYT just got office space in the white house
~ Republicorp on The Blaze

People! The Democrat’s political machine is running full bore in preparation for the next election. They need to throw several versions of the story out there to see which one gains acceptance by voters…once decided, everyone will stick to it. In the end, Hillarious Clinton will be a hero in all this…
~ StormCrow on The Blaze

The Benghazi attack had nothing to do with that film.
It was a planned attack, because it was the 11th anniversary of 9-11.
The Muslims’ holy lucky number is 11.
That’s also why New York was attacked on the 11th.
~ Believe-Receive on The Blaze

So why a story now about Bengazi when the NY Times could have cared less…SO HILLARY CAN RUN FOR PRESIDENT. This is ALL about creating a narrative so the lying wildabeast can run . The NY Times is only fit to line the bottom of bird cages
~ solomon1 on The Blaze









The New York Times. Huh. A subsidiary of the Liberal and Criminal Left Wing of American Politics.
I don't believe a word they write, and not a word of what they say.
Besides, "What difference at this point does it make?" Words to crucify Hillary "leso" Clinton.
~ Dave T. on Fox News Nation

I THINK WE ARE SEEING THE MELTDOWN OF THE MSM,WILLINGLY TRYING TO CHANGE THE NARRATIVE TO PROTECT THE DOG IN HAWAII
~ billieebob1 on Fox News Nation

This story was devised as a cover for Clinton ! Period !
~ enuffnow on Fox News Nation

The new york times is the pravda of America.
~ Jim35 on Free Republic

White House clearing the way for Hillary in 2016
~ darkwing104 on Free Republic

At first I thought this was a serious investigative news piece until I noticed it was from that spoof news organization the New York Times. Why didn’t someone use the sarcasm tag?
~ WesternPacific on Free Republic

Wow... well the number two man... the man right under the Ambassador (Chris Stevens) that was killed and raped anally by al qaeda says that the ny slimes is lying... all evidence in the official investigation states that al qaeda and associates were the perps so the ny slimes is just lying for hillary clinton... the MURDERESS of Benghazi.
~ LibLieSlayer on Free Republic

IT WAS A TERRORIST ATTACK!!!
Who gives a damn whether it was AQ or not?!?!?
It certainly had NOTHING TO DO WITH REACTION TO ANY DAMN VIDEO!!!!
~ GLarry on Free Republic

Michael Corleone: And we have newspaper people on the payroll, don’t we, Tom?
[Tom nods]
Michael Corleone: And they might like a story like that.
Tom Hagen: They might, they just might.
~ GreatMan on Free Republic

Haven't read thru all the responses so my point that the NY Slimes are paving the road for Hildabeast in 2016 may have already been made by someone as astute as ‘moi’.
~ BluH2o on Free Republic

If hitlery wins in 2016, America goes full tilt communist, and she will make mao Zedong look like a rank amateur in the area of political purges, and will start with obama and his quasi-muslim regime. The democrats have quite a quandary on their hands, either socialism, communism, brutal intolerant theocracy, or a straight up dictatorship. So many choices, so few options.
~ factoryrat on Free Republic

I think Obama had sex with the Ambassador and they killed him because he was about to talk.
~ MaxMax on Free Republic

New York Times=Propaganda
~ Red in Blue PA on Free Republic

“The Witch of Benghazi” = Derr Hilderbeast
~ Texas Fossil on Free Republic


Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, November 12, 2013

Lara Logan and the Bogus Benghazi Report

photo 60minutes.jpg
photo LaraLogan1.png

Media Matters for America, 11-03-13
On October 27, CBS' 60 Minutes featured "Morgan Jones," -- The Washington Post later revealed his real name, Dylan Davies -- a supposed "eyewitness" of the September 2012 attack on U.S. diplomatic facilities, who claimed that during the attack he scaled a wall of the compound, personally struck a terrorist in the face with his rifle butt, and later went to the Benghazi hospital to see Ambassador Chris Stevens' body.
The story he told CBS wildly diverged from the account he gave his superiors in an incident report that was obtained by The Washington Post.

New York Times
Ms. Logan said that Dylan Davies, one of the main sources for a two-week-old piece about the attack on the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, had misled the program’s staff when he gave an account of rushing to the compound the night the attack took place. “It was a mistake to include him in our report. For that, we are very sorry,” Ms. Logan said.
The apology lasted only 90 seconds and revealed nothing new about why CBS had trusted Mr. Davies, who appeared on the program under the pseudonym Morgan Jones. Off-camera, CBS executives were left to wonder how viewers would react to the exceptionally rare correction.

From Lara Logan, 60 Minutes Reporter in charge of Fake Benghazi Story
LOGAN: We end our broadcast tonight with a correction on a story we reported October 27 about the attack on the American special mission compound in Benghazi, in which Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed. In the story, a security officer working for the State Department, Dylan Davies, told us he went to the compound during the attack and detailed his role that night.
After our report aired, questions arose about whether his account was true, when an incident report surfaced. It told a different story about what he did the night of the attack. Davies denied having anything to do with that incident report and insisted the story he told us was not only accurate, it was the same story told the FBI when they interviewed him.
On Thursday night, when we discovered the account he gave the FBI was different than what he told us, we realized we had been misled, and it was a mistake to include him in our report. For that, we are very sorry. The most important thing to every person at 60 Minutes is the truth, and the truth is, we made a mistake.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It took two weeks to have that apology on 60 Minute. The piece aired at the end of October and there were questions raised almost immediately about it. So I think the question is now and the thing that media writers will be writing about this week are, what took so long and what is 60 Minutes doing to make sure this doesn’t happen again?
. . . This wasn’t a story that was breaking news, this was a story that they worked on for a year. And that’s why I think people wonder, did they come in with an agenda?
~ NY Times writer Brian Stelter on CNN via Raw Story

This evening's 60 Minutes response was wholly inadequate and entirely self-serving. The network must come clean by appointing an independent commission to determine exactly how and why it fell prey so easily to an obvious hoax.
~ David Brock, founder of Media Matters for America

(Media Matters) has been right about Benghazi for 13 months now. We have been fact-checking this story to death. And when CBS decided 'we want a piece of that pie, we want a piece of that right-wing narrative,' saying there are lingering questions when there are none . . . when they decided they wanted to key into that buzz machine . . . the next day on Fox News a Senator spent two hours talking about it. How do you know you hit a home run? When a senator's talking about your story. They couldn't resist it. But the story didn't add up.
There were no lingering questions. The conflict of interest should have stopped them. The discrepencies in the narrative should have stopped them. They should have apologized a week ago! This whole thing is a train wreck!
~ Eric Boehlert on MSNBC's All In with Chris Hayes

Journalism 101: You have a single source, and you have a self-interested source because he is trying to sell books. And then you have a story that is a political hot potato that can be red meat to certainly one side of the argument. And it seems to me that raises the bar and makes it even more crucial to do your due diligence. And I didn't hear anything in the explanation of 'what we did to vet' that lends credibility to the argument that 'we were fooled.' You shouldn't have been fooled.
Steven Reiner, former 60 Minutes Producer and now Professor of Journalism at Stony Brook

In a narrow sense, Lara Logan did say she was "sorry." But the entire 90 seconds was aimed at obfuscating what happened.
Logan said 60 Minutes had found out Thursday that they had been "misled and it was a mistake to include him in our report."
Include him in their report? He was the report. And even in conceding that her team had been "misled", Logan tiptoed around the real news, which is that it seems clear that Davies' entire story was a fabrication.
He wasn't there. So none of the stuff he did could have happened and he cannot have witnessed any of what he claimed to describe.
. . . There was yet another red flag that Davies book (the publication of which has now been canceled) was published by the publisher best known for publishing Glenn Beck, Mark Levin and Jerome Corsi.
I don't know the players involved enough to know whether this happened because of bias, indifference, arrogance or wild sloppiness. But you can't screw up much bigger than this. At a minimum there needs to be some detailed explanation of how this big a screw could have happened.
~ Josh Marshall of Media Matters












































Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)