Thread: Benghazi: Blood in the Water?

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

Since both CBS and the publisher both believe it enough to retract the story, I'd believe it too.

Clearly you have an agenda here because you treat retraction as some trivial thing media companies do on a whim.

Yeah, i have an agenda. I look for things that confirm my beliefs. Good ole confirmation bias. But im aware of it, enough to understand that sometimes, things are just as they seem and other times they are not. There are plenty of things confirming my beliefs, such as the original 60 minutes piece and the few stories about various Military officials that attempted to speak out about the embassy attack and were fired and gagged by the administration. So its only natural that i raise an eyebrow when 60 Minutes so quickly retracts a story that i view as a confirmation. Also, at the end of the day i know im only playing armchair quarterback, and whatever i believe, or post doesn't mean shit in the scheme of things. Its just my opinion based on how i view things, and i never claim it to be more than that.

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

Clearly you have an agenda here because you treat retraction as some trivial thing media companies do on a whim.

Oh, and its not because i treat retraction as some trivial thing media outlets do on a whim, its that i expect that they follow a story on more than a whim, especially a story as big as Benghazi.

CBS' Lara Logan, producer on leave after discredited Benghazi report - CNN.com

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

CBS' Lara Logan, producer on leave after discredited Benghazi report - CNN.com

And this proves what, exactly beyond the fact that CBS failed to properly vette a self-proclaimed witness?

Does this mean that the administration and specifically Hilary Clinton DIDN'T ignore repeated sitreps and requests for increased security made by Ambassador Stevens?
Does this now mean that the administration DIDN'T lie repeatedly to the American people about the attack, who committed it or the purpose of it?
Does this now mean that the administration DIDN'T have the ability to send Spec Ops personnel from AFRICOM or elsewhere to support those who died before they were killed?
Does this mean that the President DIDN'T leave a few orders with subordinates and go to bed that night and completely ignore the armed assault on American soil in Benghazi?
Does this mean that a completely unrelated individual was NOT blamed by the administration and subsequently jailed for a video he put on you tube, and will now face persecution from radical muslims for years as a result?

The answer to all the questions? NO.

I don't recall one single person using this dude's account of what happened to prove anything on these forums or in this thread. So, meh. Big whoop.

Originally Posted by -Lazarus-

And this proves what, exactly beyond the fact that CBS failed to properly vette a self-proclaimed witness?

Does this mean that the administration and specifically Hilary Clinton DIDN'T ignore repeated sitreps and requests for increased security made by Ambassador Stevens?
Does this now mean that the administration DIDN'T lie repeatedly to the American people about the attack, who committed it or the purpose of it?
Does this now mean that the administration DIDN'T have the ability to send Spec Ops personnel from AFRICOM or elsewhere to support those who died before they were killed?
Does this mean that the President DIDN'T leave a few orders with subordinates and go to bed that night and completely ignore the armed assault on American soil in Benghazi?
Does this mean that a completely unrelated individual was NOT blamed by the administration and subsequently jailed for a video he put on you tube, and will now face persecution from radical muslims for years as a result?

Can you conclusively prove any of this true?

No you can't.

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

Can you conclusively proved any of this true?

No you can't.

It's been conclusively proven in this very thread, multiple times on some points. I think you are starting to sound a bit foolish saying that.

Originally Posted by -Lazarus-

It's been conclusively proven in this very thread, multiple times on some points.

No it wasn't.