Lara Logan, CBS and Benghazi story

[Michchamp]

link.

Logan and McClellan?s temporary dismissal at CBS is in contrast to the permanent removal of four veteran producers and correspondent Dan Rather, who was also the anchor of CBS Evening News at the time, after a 2004 ?60 Minutes II? report on George W. Bush?s absence from service in the Texas Air National Guard caused an uproar among the right-wing blogosphere. Though the authenticity of one of the documents used in that report has never been verified, the substance of the report was not disputed by the Bush administration and has since been confirmed to be true.​

the media matters article I bolded is an interesting read. I consider myself pretty well-informed, and even I didn't know that the facts bore Dan Rather out.

I agree there is a bit of a double standard here as the article points out:
lie to further right wing causes and get caught? slap on the wrist. tell the truth, but maybe conduct sloppy reporting along the way to further a left wing cause? career death.

the "liberal media" at it again...

 

[jswain]

What does the Obama administration get for lieing to the american publuc for the reason behind the attack

 

[Sbee]

What does the Obama administration get for lieing to the american publuc for the reason behind the attack

Lying? He called it an act of terror in the rose garden and the investigation was still ongoing. Also, there was a huge uproar in the region about a cartoon or some other pointless shit Muslims feel justified murder.

This is all about fighting the 2016 election early, drag Hillary down because the gop is scared.

 

[byco42]

The Rose Garden speech was typical boilerplate that never connected the Benghazi attack with "an act of terror":

And there's this, the day after the attack:

KROFT: “Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word ‘terrorism’ in connection with the Libya attack.”
OBAMA: “Right.”
KROFT: “Do you believe that this was a terrorist attack?”
OBAMA: “Well, it’s too early to know exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans. And we are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice, one way or the other.”

Eight days later:

QUESTION: “We have reports that the White House said today that the attacks in Libya were a terrorist attack. Do you have information indicating that it was Iran, or al-Qaeda was behind organizing the protests?”
OBAMA: “Well, we’re still doing an investigation, and there are going to be different circumstances in different countries. And so I don’t want to speak to something until we have all the information. What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests.”

This was either a deliberate lie or the statement of an utter failure in leadership.

 

[Sbee]

The Rose Garden speech was typical boilerplate that never connected the Benghazi attack with "an act of terror":

And there's this, the day after the attack:

KROFT: ?Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word ?terrorism? in connection with the Libya attack.?
OBAMA: ?Right.?
KROFT: ?Do you believe that this was a terrorist attack??
OBAMA: ?Well, it?s too early to know exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans. And we are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice, one way or the other.?

Eight days later:

QUESTION: ?We have reports that the White House said today that the attacks in Libya were a terrorist attack. Do you have information indicating that it was Iran, or al-Qaeda was behind organizing the protests??
OBAMA: ?Well, we?re still doing an investigation, and there are going to be different circumstances in different countries. And so I don?t want to speak to something until we have all the information. What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests.?

This was either a deliberate lie or the statement of an utter failure in leadership.

Does it really matter? If they were mad about a video or if they were mad about our presence in the region. How does it change the outcome? Its all posturing for 2016.


There's nothing wrong with saying an investigation is still ongoing 8 days later.

 

[byco42]

Does it really matter? If they were mad about a video or if they were mad about our presence in the region. How does it change the outcome? Its all posturing for 2016.

I don't care about the GOP or who wins what in '16. Different brand of statists will still be in charge.

Its not like he lied about chemical weapons or how the iraq war would finance itself with oil revenues.

So now we're equivocating presidential lies.

There's nothing wrong with saying an investigation is still ongoing 8 days later.

There is when you are stalling and obfuscating the facts to save face. And when you already know there's no connection to some obscure video and the orchestrated attack on 9-11-12.

"What difference does it make!?" Hillary's 2016 campaign slogan.

 

[Sbee]

I don't care about the GOP or who wins what in '16. Different brand of statists will still be in charge.

So now we're equivocating presidential lies.

There is when you are stalling and obfuscating the facts to save face. And when you already know there's no connection to some obscure video and the orchestrated attack on 9-11-12.

"What difference does it make!?" Hillary's 2016 campaign slogan.

These investigations tend to take longer than 8 days, I hate to break it to you.


You may not care about Hillary or 2016 but the Senate pannel conducting the hearinga sure as hell did, anyone can see that.

 

[byco42]

These investigations tend to take longer than 8 days, I hate to break it to you.

But they concluded that the video was the cause for the attack inside of 24 hours. And the perps are still out there. There was no desire to discover the details then. Nor is there now.

You may not care about Hillary or 2016 but the Senate pannel conducting the hearinga sure as hell did, anyone can see that.

Let the Jacobins devour each other.

 

[Michchamp]

wow some people really can't let go of Benghazi, can they?

the issue is how this hack was allowed to peddle an outright lie to the people via her news slot on CBS and she sees virtually no consequences from that.

 

[jwlcosu]

wow some people really can't let go of Benghazi, can they?

Yes, because after all, what difference at this point does it make?

 

[Michchamp]

Yes, because after all, what difference at this point does it make?

tragic but isolated incident. pathetic and sad how the GOP has humped it continuously since then as though there was some greater significance to it.

 

[jswain]

tragic but isolated incident. pathetic and sad how the GOP has humped it continuously since then as though there was some greater significance to it.

And there was

 

[jwlcosu]

tragic but isolated incident.

Yea, tragic. Yada, Yada.

Funny how you have outrage for Logan's lies but you're cool with the story tellers in the administration.

 

[byco42]

tragic but isolated incident. pathetic and sad how the GOP has humped it continuously since then as though there was some greater significance to it.

The "greater significance" is that this is not an "isolated incident" in so far as it is yet another example of how government operates when it's trying to cover its mistakes. It's as pathetic that our leadership is never accountable for fatal mistakes it is directly responsible for committing. It's equally pathetic that the people in power are more concerned with their personal political careers than with coming forth with the facts in a timely fashion and admitting their errors.