Both coverups were executed to help the incumbent get re-elected. Only one of them involved assassinations of Americans, using a cover-story that further inflamed international anti-American tensions. I wonder if the mainstream media were more interested in fully reporting this story, if there would be impeachment discussions...
Benghazi. Major news outlet CBS being complicit in the Presidentila lie by not showing the entire 60 minute interview with Obama where he would not acknowledge it was a terrorist attack. After the Crowley debacle, CBS should have aired the interview.
IDH good point even blind partisans know what is going on and as we learn more and more it gets worse and worse can you imagine that SEAL manning that machine gun and BEGGING for support that never came but let's pretend BO didn't know what was going on oh wait Bo did remind us he " greeted the coffins". What a slime . he could have been greeting those men alive but that would have meant acknowledging it was terrorism and maybe Bo really hasn't, as he likes to claim, ' decimated Al Q No question which event was worse
Hi Guys, The Link - reported facts on attack Or are you referring to security requests? The Link - reported facts on security request Do these articles indicate a cover-up or do you see them as being biased? Support your facts with evidence. This is an important issue. Seems like I'm missing something you guys know. Thanks for your time.
There is a reason Romney has not mentioned Benghazi since the last debate: There is no issue or coverup here. A small segment of people keep talking about Benghazi hope if they keep talking about it it will become an issue. Reminds me of aggy and their circle jerks telling each other how great they are.
Jerseygate! There are people still without water nor food eating out of trash dumpsters. Obummer should be strung up by the media like Bush was for Katrina. Go ahead and say it isn't as bad but you are kidding yourself.
Gad It is possible I missed , in your links, the information that Tyrone Woods had laser capability to paint the motars and for 5 hours AFTER the attack began he also had communication capability or is it that CNN is your sole source and no other source could have " facts"?
Nixon set up a burglary ring in the white house and when they got caught he tried to get the FBI called off by claiming it was a national security deal. They rewarded him for his criminal and cowardly behavior by feeding the Washington Post enough info to bury the little creep. AS Hunter Thompson said at Nixon's death, it was a disgrace that they didn't pitch his body in a dumpster and set it afire.
If they had done that then then someone would have died. So, are you for pitching Bo's body in a dumpster and setting it on fire? Seems fair, since 4 people died and almost every major news org. is helping cover it up.
I'm assuming the people that think the Bengazi Coverup was worse than the Watergate coverup were not old enough to watch the news when Watergate unfolded. I know subverting Democracy for conservative causes is not frowned upon in all circles, but Nixon's dirty tricks were hardly the same as making bad decisions with limited information. It was a vast, ugly conspiracy that was cynical and hostile to the ideals of free people governing themselves. Assuming you believe the worst about Bengazi, (not everybody does) it's like comparing a teenager convicted of drunken driving manslaughter with Jack the Ripper.
You're all invited to my house to watch Obama's concession speech about 10:30 tomorrow night. Boy that guy can sure make a speech, I'm so looking forward to it. Almost forgot, Benghazi, and it's not even close.
I can't wait for the Republiturds flushing party tomorrow. Then we get to laugh at the secession blather afterwards
Thanks, Shark. I think there is a bias in CNN, but I was hoping my links were not biased. If you are referring to Obama’s comment in CBS that he didn’t know if the attack was a terrorist attack, I’m not sure how that’s a cover-up by him. You many conclude he was lying and he did know or certain, but that claim would require some evidence I’ve yet to find. Either way, I’m not sure how that invalidates the facts presented in the CNN article, but not really worthy of a debate, imo. It certainly does call into question the conclusion the article professes. I did locate the Foreign Policy article you suggested. Thanks for the info. The CNN article suggests that many attempts to increase security were sent to the State Department, so the article you suggested does not invalidate or repudiate the CNN article (that I can tell). It seems to be supporting evidence for what the CNN article is saying. To me, it comes down to this. There were requests to the State Department for added security which were declined. Do I expect the POTUS to review all these requests? No. I think that it’s terribly inefficient to do that. When there is live fire on the ground, should the President be involved with approving support? Absolutely NOT. Those should be quick decisions made by the military leaders in command. Has Obama and H. Clinton done a good job of putting effective leadership in place to protect against the attack? Obviously, hindsight is 20/20. This was an extreme tragedy and many mistakes were made. I don’t think the administration took security seriously and the death of some of our bravest was the result. We have every right to be critical of the State Department here. However, the original topic was based on the concept of a “cover-up” to the scale of Watergate. There is still little evidence for a cover-up.
