So Obama didn't know if it was a terror attack?

[SLC Flyfishing]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/11/cbs-under-fire-for-withholding-obamas-benghazi-remarks-148513.html

Thoughts?

[184550]

Who cares?

[SLC Flyfishing]

Those of you who claim that there's no liberal bias in the media should care cause articles like this make you look stupid.

[Zombie Acorn]

How exactly is this a dead horse? Media withholding footage that makes Obama look bad?

[Moyank24]

Originally Posted by Zombie Acorn

How exactly is this a dead horse? Media withholding footage that makes Obama look bad?

Somehow this finds its way into every thread on this forum.

Democrats: Romney hates gay people.
Republicans: But...but....but....Benghazi!

Democrats: Romney hates women.
Republicans: But...but....but....Benghazi!

Democrats: Romney still hasn't shared any of his plans for the next 4 years.
Republicans: But...but....but....Benghazi!

Democrats: It's a fallacy that Republicans can actually balance a budget.
Republicans: But...but....but....Benghazi!

Etc, etc, etc....

Enough already.

[hulugu]

The article's conclusions don't make much sense.

CBS decided for whatever reason to hold the President's comments—and note, as a journalist, I would have run it because news is news—but had this comment come on air, then it's doubtful the president would have guided Romney into the same rhetorical ambush.

The President did so because he knew he could win on a technicality—the Rose Garden address—and avoid the harder question about why the administration danced around for a few days after about details of the attack.

But, when we get down to this, it hardly matters. What if the president was unwilling to call it a terrorist attack, how does nomenclature bring back the dead? How does a willingness to call it terrorism make us stronger?

It doesn't, because when we get down to it, the administration acted appropriately during the attack and there's no evidence that the administration made tactical decisions that thwarted that defense or lead to the deaths of four men.

The lack of hardening of the embassy was a policy decision, guided by the need for the facilities to engage the surrounding populace, funding limitations created by Republicans, and a lack of bureaucratic energy in State to add defenses.

Keep in mind that bigger consulates have also been attacked and suffered more casualties under the Bush administration.

[rdowns]

Originally Posted by SLC Flyfishing

Those of you who claim that there's no liberal bias in the media should care cause articles like this make you look stupid.

That old canard. Here's all you need to know about Benghazi. As soon as Romney started receiving intelligence briefings, he dropped this like a hot potato. What does that tell you?

[iJohnHenry]

Originally Posted by Moyank24

Etc, etc, etc....

Democrats: But...but....but....Sandyi!

[Thomas Veil]

Okay, wait a minute. CBS "withheld" the footage to protect the president prior to the second debate. Then, before the election, it releases that footage to...protect the president?? When they could have just as easily held onto it for another day or two?

[SLC Flyfishing]

Originally Posted by Moyank24

Somehow this finds its way into every thread on this forum.

Democrats: "Attempted character assassination."
Republicans: "Demonstrated ineptitude of Obama"

Enough already.

Fixed that for ya ;D

[iJohnHenry]

Originally Posted by SLC Flyfishing

Fixed that for ya ;D

Is that what you have been reduced to?

Sad.

[Thomas Veil]

Originally Posted by SLC Flyfishing

Fixed that for ya ;D

I guess that's why you're not recommended on Angie's List.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by SLC Flyfishing

Thoughts?

The president has a modicum of restraint and diplomacy in him. In the midst of heightened tensions he chose to walk a fine line so as to not enflame the situation. I see it as a savvy and intelligent move on his part.

However, Obama underestimated the obsessive hatred of the right. Had he known better, he might have traded some diplomacy for a little red-meat, foaming-at-the-mouth bluster, though I doubt it would have assuaged the right completely.

I'm sure they'd have found something else to second guess, nitpick and ridicule just as endlessly.

[iJohnHenry]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

though I doubt it would have assuaged the right completely.

You may safely remove all doubt from your mind.

They would have likened him to a rabid dog, for carrying on that way.

See, it's easy, when you hold no positions.

[MadeTheSwitch]

Originally Posted by SLC Flyfishing

Those of you who claim that there's no liberal bias in the media should care cause articles like this make you look stupid.

Obsessing over something that the average person does not care about is what makes someone look stupid.

Benghazi has replaced a birth certificate as the new Republican obsession. Time for Republicans to get a new hobby.

[dime21]

Originally Posted by MadeTheSwitch

Benghazi has replaced a birth certificate as the new Republican obsession. Time for Republicans to get a new hobby.

Yes, you're right, we should all let this disgusting Divider in Chief off the hook for the deaths in Benghazi. Sounds like you need a new hobby, prehaps take a break from Obama-cheerleading.

[NickZac]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

However, Obama underestimated the obsessive hatred of the right.

If we go by that, we could also say he "underestimated the obsessive hatred" of Islamic extremists.

[184550]

Originally Posted by dime21

Yes, you're right, we should all let this disgusting Divider in Chief off the hook for the deaths in Benghazi. Sounds like you need a new hobby, prehaps take a break from Obama-cheerleading.

Eh, you seem to have let Bush off the hook for the 3,000 deaths on 9/11. This ought to be small potatoes for you.

[Zombie Acorn]

Originally Posted by NathanMuir

Eh, you seem to have let Bush off the hook for the 3,000 deaths on 9/11. This ought to be small potatoes for you.

Bush is running again?

[iJohnHenry]

Originally Posted by Zombie Acorn

Bush is running again?

Jeb is still teething.

[rdowns]

Originally Posted by Zombie Acorn

Bush is running again?

Might as well be with all the Bush administration retreads advising Romney. 17 of his 24 foreign policy advisors are from the Bush admin., not tomention his ecomonic advisors are the ones who predicted huge jobs growth if we enacted Bush's tax cuts. We all know how well that worked.

[VulchR]

Zzzzzz. This is a non-issue. What Obama said is unimportant. What is important is whether there was any negligence in the provision of security. In this regard, I do not think we have the facts yet. However, even if some horrible error of judgment was made, I still prefer Obama to Romney. I suspect that the majority of Americans will agree when they cast their vote today.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by VulchR

Zzzzzz. This is a non-issue. What Obama said is unimportant.

Unfortunately, you can't determine what is important to other people. And while I agree with you that this level of obsession over the issue is unhealthy and unproductive, we are going to have to live with it. And if Obama is re-elected, it — as well as other avenues of hatred — will continue to be expressed for much longer.

We've ceased to work together and now seem to only seek to destroy the other side. While I would welcome an Obama victory, I believe it will only portend more discontent, more obstructionism and further the regression of this country.

[Carlanga]

Originally Posted by SLC Flyfishing

Those of you who claim that there's no liberal bias in the media should care cause articles like this make you look stupid.

I think most people know there is a bias on media; the issue most have w/ bias on the media is that Fox News goes above and beyond in ridiculousness and why is the one most talked about.

[AhmedFaisal]

Originally Posted by Carlanga

I think most people know there is a bias on media; the issue most have w/ bias on the media is that Fox News goes above and beyond in ridiculousness and why is the one most talked about.

1. There is no such thing as unbiased reporting. Everybody has an opinion and as such it will bias your view on a given situation.
2. Most of big media is owned by individuals and big corporations that would be net beneficiaries if a tax and services slashing administration took office. What offsets that is that not all of them are completely egotistic tinfoil hats like Rupert Murdoch.

The media as a whole is more or less centrists with some tilting slightly to the right and some slightly to the left. What you perceive as a bias is you skewed perception of where the true center is and let me tell you it is far, far to the left of Fox News. It's no the media that's off but the right's political compass....