Showing posts with label sources. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sources. Show all posts

Thursday, May 1, 2014

#Benghazi is Back Because It Never Left ~ Jon Karl is Thrilled

photo conspiracy-theory-meme-300x300.jpg

Previous Related Posts:
Jon Karl Issues a Non-Apology Apology Over Fake Benghazi Emails
Jon Karl Gets Juiced by Fake Benghazi Leak
Lindsey Graham Blames Russian Aggression on #Benghazi
Lara Logan and the Bogus Benghazi Report
New York Times Debunks #Benghazi - POP Go the Tea Party Heads
The Benghazi Political Circus
The #Benghazi Witch Hunt

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



Well, Benghazi is back - but then it was never gone, and it will probably never be gone. When the last Tea Partier lays down his gun and rides into the Sunset, Benghazi!!!!! will be carved on his headstone, right next to Molon Labe.

A new document has been found in which a White House Aide tells Susan Rice to follow the CIA talking points, which we already know that she did. Yawn. None of this is really new, nor is it a smoking gun. It's the last gasp of a dying party, but hey, they got nothin' else. Besides, it changes the subject from Cliven Bundy and his racism, so Sean Hannity is heaving a sigh of relief.

This new thing is brought to you by Judicial Watch, a conservative "watchdog" group ~ yeah, they are going to be unbiased, right? Look at their tweet!



Oh, Look ~ Rep. Darrell Issa has started a new investigation!
Surprise!!! (NOT)






From Fox News
New emails indicate a White House adviser helped prep (UN Ambassador Susan) Rice for her Sunday show appearances and pushed the explanation linking the attack to an anti-Islamic film -- and now, the White House is facing credibility questions after having downplayed their role in Rice's "talking points."

. . . During a heated briefing with reporters Wednesday afternoon, Press Secretary Jay Carney repeatedly tried to claim that the so-called "prep call" with Rice -- as it was described in one email -- was not about Benghazi. The prep session, he said, was just about the demonstrations elsewhere in the Muslim world that week.
"It is not about Benghazi -- it is about the protests around the Muslim world," Carney claimed.

. . . the documents obtained and released by conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch, as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, included a Sept. 14, 2012, email from White House aide Ben Rhodes, an assistant to the president and deputy national security adviser for strategic communications.

The Rhodes email, with the subject line: "RE: PREP Call with Susan: Saturday at 4:00 pm ET," was sent to a dozen members of the administration's inner circle, including key members of the White House communications team such as Carney.
In the email, Rhodes specifically draws attention to the anti-Islam Internet video, without distinguishing whether the Benghazi attack was different from protests elsewhere.

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

And who was in the "heated debate" with Press Secretary Jay Carney? None other than ABC's Benghazi Warrior, Jonathan Karl, who was once fooled by some fake emails about Benghazi. Why he gets to ask questions now is a mystery, because he has no credibility left as a reporter, and now merely shills for the Right. Someday his visage will hang in the Benghazi Hall of Fame, right next to Lindsey Graham and Darrell Issa.

It would be funnier if it wasn't such a boring waste of time!







And of course all the other Pundidiots and Politicians have to chime in.

UPDATE: Joe Scarborough Loses His Mind on Morning Joe, Transcript Via NewsMax

photo MorningJo2.png

MIKA BRZEZINSKI: So the email that you all are talking about is written by deputy national security advisor Ben Rhodes. I think we flashed it up there. To then-U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice. The email was sent two days before Ambassador Rice went on five Sunday talk shows and blamed an anti-Islamic video for the attack.

One of the goals listed in the email, "To underscore that these protests are rooted in an internet video and not a broader failure of policy." So they're trying to really clarify exactly what her focus is.

Republicans say the email is a smoking gun and should have been released with the rest of the Benghazi material, as we were talking about. But the White House disagrees, arguing that it was about broader Middle East policy and didn't have to be released.

JOE SCARBOROUGH: Oh, that's ridiculous.

. . . DONNY DEUTSCH: I want to put up a warning for the Republicans because obviously the Republicans are seizing on this and jumping in. I think this is fools gold for 2016. I do not think the Benghazi – I think if they focus on this-

SCARBOROUGH: What about the cover-up for the White House? I got everybody here – I got everybody here apologizing for the White House.

DEUTSCH: I'm not.

SCARBOROUGH: What about a cover-up here, Donny?!

DEUTSCH: I am talking about political strategy. I think that-

SCARBOROUGH: Okay. But why are you jumping to political strategy instead of talking-

DEUTSCH: I'm just giving my point of view.

SCARBOROUGH: No, why aren't you talking about what Jay Carney did, the double speak?!

DEUTSCH: Because – it is double speak, but I'm talking politics. This is a political show.



SCARBOROUGH: So tell me, what's the politics of the White House lying about something that we all know they're lying about. When Jay Carney is saying it's not about Benghazi when you know it's about Benghazi! And we know it's about Benghazi.

DEUTSCH: If they're gonna run against Hillary Clinton on this, I think it's a bad political move.

SCARBOROUGH: And Chuck Todd knows it's about Benghazi. And he [pointing to Mike Barnicle] knows it's about – everybody watching knows it's about Benghazi. And you're talking about how the Republicans – you see the White House spokesperson lying on national television. You see an ABC News person shocked that he's lying and treating the press corps and Americans like their stupid, he's says it's not about Benghazi.

Republicans and conservatives have been called fools for a year now for saying this happened. They don't release it with the original documents that are released. They finally reluctantly are forced to release it. Then you have the White House lying about it yesterday saying it's not about Benghazi. And your only reaction is, "Hey, Republicans better not overreact to the cover-up."

DEUTSCH: My reaction is this, that we as voters understand both Republicans and Democrats are political animals and are going to manage a crisis in their situation to their favor. So what I am saying it's both-

SCARBOROUGH: So when Democrats cover something up, it's politics.

DEUTSCH: Joe, Joe, you know what?

SCARBOROUGH: When Republicans cover something up, it's a scandal.

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

There you have it. Cold, hard evidence that a high-level White House aide instructed Ambassador Rice to blame Benghazi on a YouTube video.
~ Sean Hannity on Fox News, via Heritage Foundation

We now have the smoking document,” Krauthammer said, “which is the White House saying, ‘We’re pushing the video because we don’t want to blame it on the failure of our policies.’
~ Charles Krauthammer of Fox News, via Politico

Let’s be clear: The Rhodes memo certainly seems to confirm the allegations Republicans have been making for more than a year: the White House was intentionally spinning after the attack so as not to damage their reelection prospects. The White House denied this, and now there is evidence the critics were right. Isn’t the mainstream media the least bit curious about what happened?
~ Conservative Pundit, Jennifer Rubin, on Washington Post



















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: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, November 5, 2013

Rand Paul Throws Down Gauntlet Over Plagiarism ~ Updated with Detention

 
 
Previous Related Posts:
Rand Paul is Confused about Plagiarism
Rand Paul's Gattaca Moment

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

Rand Paul keeps taking a new helping of words even while challenging Rachel Maddow of MSNBC to a Duel (as in, shooting her) over her reports about him. Blame the Haters!!!

Senator Rand Paul R-Kentucky via Maddow Blog
“[U]nder thousands of things I’ve written, yeah, there are times when they’ve been sloppy or not correct or we’ve made an error. But the difference is I take it as an insult, and I will not lie down and say people can call me dishonest, misleading or misrepresenting. I have never intentionally done so.
“And like I say, if – you know, if dueling were legal in Kentucky, if they keep it up, you know, it’d be a duel challenge. But I can’t do that because I can’t hold office in Kentucky then.”
. . . I think I’m being unfairly targeted by a bunch of hacks and haters.”

There is nothing wrong with the reporting. . . . You can try to make this about me, but how about addressing the substance?
And now Rand Paul wants to shoot at me or stab me with a sword or something for reporting something true that he has done wrong as a politician. Responding to the person rather than to the charge is a time tested tactic. Honestly, it is a symptom of immaturity in our political discourse that it's expected that this is part of the way he'll respond.
~ Rachel Maddow of MSNBC via Huffington Post

 UPDATE!

 It annoys the hell out of me. I feel like if I could just go to detention after school for a couple days, then everything would be okay. But do I have to be in detention for the rest of my career?
~ Rand Paul in National Review

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

Meanwhile . . . people are digging up more examples of Plagiarism while his handlers start trying to erase his mistakes (that's cheating too and doesn't work too well on the Internet).
































































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

Thursday, October 31, 2013

Rand Paul Confused about Plagiarism

photo 51963886-0e65-48aa-aa45-89eb164c7822.jpg

Previous Related Post:
Rand Paul's Gattaca Moment

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

MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow pointed out the similarities between Rand Paul’s talk in Virginia about Gattaca and that futuristic film’s Wikipedia entry.
. . . A revision history of the Gattaca Wikipedia page showed Paul had to have copied the speech since no changes were made after Paul’s speech.
A June 12, 2013 speech on immigration discussed the movie Stand and Deliver.
. . . the Wikipedia article on the film with red lines over the text...appears verbatim in Paul’s speech.
~ Andrew Kaczynski on Buzzfeed

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

Well, we, we borrowed the plot lines from ‘Gattaca,’ a movie, and I gave credit to the people who wrote the movie. I think they’re arguing about whether things are properly footnoted. And there are technicalities to this. But nothing I said was not given attribution to where it came from.
~ Senator Rand Paul R-Kentucky, via Politico

The rest of it's making a mountain out of a molehill from people I think basically who are political enemies and have an ax to grind. This is really about information and attacks coming from haters. The person who's leading this attack -- she's been spreading hate on me for about three years now.
~ Senator Rand Paul referring to Rachel Maddow, who first brought the plagiarism to light on her show

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

Nobody is accusing you of pretending that you wrote ‘Gattaca’ or that you wrote ‘Stand and Deliver,’ that is not what this about. This is not about you explaining a plot line. This is about you lifting other peoples’ words verbatim and pretending that they are your own. This is something that high school students know not to do. And you are presenting yourself as potential candidate for president.
~ Rachel Maddow on MSNBC via Politico

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

















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

Sunday, May 19, 2013

Jonathan Karl Issues a Non-Apology Apology Over Fake Benghazi Emails

photo jonathan_karl2-620x4121.jpg

Previous Related Posts:
Jonathan Karl Gets Juiced by Fake Benghazi Leak
The Benghazi Political Circus

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

From CNN:
Jonathan Karl, chief White House correspondent for ABC News, addressed criticism of his reporting on the Benghazi talking points controversy, saying in a statement to CNN that he regrets the inaccuracy of his report.
“Clearly, I regret the email was quoted incorrectly and I regret that it’s become a distraction from the story, which still entirely stands. I should have been clearer about the attribution. We updated our story immediately," he said in the statement to Howard Kurtz, host of CNN's "Reliable Sources."

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





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


















































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

Saturday, February 23, 2013

Reporter Snark about "Friends of Hamas" Becomes Fake GOP Talking Point

Photobucket



Ben Shapiro on Breitbart
On Thursday, Senate sources told Breitbart News exclusively that they have been informed that one of the reasons that President Barack Obama’s nominee for Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel, has not turned over requested documents on his sources of foreign funding is that one of the names listed is a group purportedly called “Friends of Hamas.”
. . . Called for comment and reached via telephone, Associate Communications Director at the White House Eric Schultz identified himself, heard the question, was silent for several seconds, and then hung up the phone immediately without comment. Called back via the White House switchboard, Schultz’s phone rang through to his answering machine. Called on his cell phone, Schultz’s phone rang through to his answering machine.

Photobucket

From the Hugh Hewitt Conservative Talk Show with Rand Paul
HH: Well, let’s stay focused on Friends Of Hamas. Obviously, that would be a support group for a terrorist organization. Can you imagine voting or not filibustering anyone who’d received support from supporters of a terrorist organization?
Rand Paul: Like I say, it’s very troubling. And I’ve just seen the press report, so I’m going to have to look at what the response is, what the group is, and that kind of thing. But it is very concerning.

If it proves true the rumors of Chuck Hagel's having received funds from Friends of Hamas, if that's true then on its face that would disqualify him.
~ Conservative Radio and TV Pundit, and ex-Republican Candidate, Mike Huckabee

Rumors abound on Capitol Hill that a full disclosure of Hagel’s professional ties would reveal financial relationships with a number of “unsavory” groups, including one purportedly called “Friends of Hamas.” The GOP aide said it was “noteworthy” that the White House has yet to deny the association. “Maybe it’s not true, but why not provide a list of groups he spoke to and remove all doubt?” the aide said.
~ National Review

Well this is certainly an eye opener. According to Senate sources, the reason Hagel hasn’t released documents on his sources of foreign funding is because he received funding by a group named “Friends of Hamas”.
~ The Right Scoop

That is quite the accusation, and it gives the Left a rare opportunity to go after the Breitbart constellation of websites. All they have to do to debunk it is to have Hagel reveal his foreign donors. I mean, how likely is it that the White house could have messed up vetting Chuck Hagel that badly…
~ Moe Lane on Red State


But Wait Just a Minute . . .

"Friends of Hamas": The Scary-Sounding Pro-Hagel Group That Doesn't Actually Exist
Here's the problem: There's no proof that "Friends of Hamas" actually exists. At best, it's an organization so secret that nobody in government has thought to mention its existence. At worst, it's as fake as Manti Te'o's girlfriend. The Treasury Department, which designates sponsors of terror, has done so to many charities tied to Hamas. "Friends of Hamas" is not among them. The State Department doesn't designate it, either. And a bit less holistically, a Lexis search for the group reveals absolutely nothing.
~ David Weigel on Slate, and one of the first to realize that Friends of Hamas does not exist


Oh, Perhaps This is Why . . .


Dan Friedman of New York Daily News
Fortunately for Hagel, this claim, which galloped across the Internet, was bogus. I know, because I was the unwitting source.
. . . On Feb. 6, I called a Republican aide on Capitol Hill with a question: Did Hagel’s Senate critics know of controversial groups that he had addressed?
Hagel was in hot water for alleged hostility to Israel. So, I asked my source, had Hagel given a speech to, say, the “Junior League of Hezbollah, in France”? And: What about “Friends of Hamas”?
The names were so over-the-top, so linked to terrorism in the Middle East, that it was clear I was talking hypothetically and hyperbolically. No one could take seriously the idea that organizations with those names existed — let alone that a former senator would speak to them.
. . . I erred in counting on confidentiality and the understanding that my example was farcical — and by assuming no one would print an unchecked rumor.
If anyone didn’t know already: Partisan agendas, Internet reporting and old-fashioned carelessness can move complete crocks fast. If you see a story on Hagel addressing the Junior League of Hezbollah, that’s fake too.

Shapiro is Kinda Ticked-Off . . . 

NY Daily News Hack Posits He's Source of 'Friends of Hamas,' Lies by Omission
. . . Friedman knew his story was false when he printed it. He printed it anyway. The story Breitbart News ran originally was accurate and clearly caveated. Dan Friedman was not the source of the information given to Breitbart News. But the media is already jumping to help Friedman push his narrative. It’s all part of the mission to protect Barack Obama and Chuck Hagel. Because, after all, this is the most easily debunked story in the world: all Chuck Hagel has to do is release his records.
~ Andrew Shapiro on Breitbart AFTER Friends of Hamas was shown to be Bogus Group

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

If the rumor-mongering was limited to conservative blogs, it wouldn’t be as worrisome. Unfortunately, prominent Republicans have been all too keen to go along with the line of questioning started by Breitbart.
~ Think Progress

So … Chuck Hagel has no ties to a group called “Friends of Hamas.” Ahem … Because no such group exists. But right wingers, and the McCarthyite Senators they’ve gone and elected, and their silly “news” cable channel, and their talk radio guys, and their blogs, just need, NEED, NEEEEED, to hate Barack Obama and everyone around him so desperately, they’ll believe damned near everything.
. . . And therein lies the problem with the right. They start at the end, rather than the beginning — so filled with the desire to believe the worst, that they’ll just as easily believe the stupidest.
~ The Reid Report







#FakeRightWingHagelStories



























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


Stephen Colbert on Comedy Central, February 21, 2013
Senate Republicans have found all sorts of shady associations in Hagel's past. For instance, he was once a Senate Republican.
(laughter)
And now, according to conservative news anger-gator Breitbart.com, Hagel may have taken money from an organization called "Friends of Hamas."
(laughter and boos)
Friends of Hamas, that is serious. Being friends with a Muslim terrorist is a big commitment. (laughter) You've got to be groomsman in all four of their weddings. I mean, the suicide vest-rental alone . . .
(laughter)
Folks, this bombshell has lit up the conserve-o-sphere.
(plays audio about Breitbart, Rand Paul, and Fox News talking about Friends of Hamas)
Lou Dobbs of Fox: Friends of Hamas. That has a ring to it.
Colbert: Yes, that has a ring to it. A ring that goes something like this:
(Rings large bell, sound of Arab women making high-pitched sound - audience laughs and claps)
And folks, Friends of Hamas is even worse than it sounds because this organization is so sinister that it doesn't even exist.
It turns out Hagel's link with Friends of Hamas goes back to Daily News Reporter Dan Friedman who asked a Republican Senate Aide looking for dirt in Hagel's past if Hagel had given a speech to the "Junior League of Hezbollah" or the "Friends of Hamas" - "assuming that no one could take seriously the idea that organizations with those names existed."
(laughter)
Why wouldn't you take it seriously?
I mean, if there's no Junior League of Hezbollah then who puts out the cookbook of Bomb Recipes?
Besides, the fact that these organizations don't exist only makes it more suspicious that Chuck Hagel has been tied to them!
What else is he hiding that hasn't happened?
(laughter)
Is he a member of the Al Qaeda Kidz Club?
What about the Muslim Brotherhood?
Or the Muslim Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants?
(laughter and clapping)
And what about Non-Islamic Non-Existant Groups?
Has Chuck Hagel ever given a speech to Cobra, or for that matter Cobra Kai?
Has he received donations from the Lollipop Guild?
(laughter)
What are his ties to the Dead Poets Society? And why are they dead? Do they know too much about Benghazi?
(laughter)
President Obama, you must withdraw Hagel's nomination or you will lose the support of of every Moderate Republican, another group that doesn't exist.




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