Benghazi: The False 60 Minutes Report

#Benghazi #60minutes #benghaziscandal #foxnews #CBS #republicans #Obama #embassyattack

A terrible thing happened last year, the Benghazi Embassy in Libya was attacked by anti-American extremists and the American Ambassador to Benghazi was killed along with others placed to guard the embassy. After this occurred the conservatives went on a offensive, saying that the attack happened and was successful because the Obama Administration ignored warnings that tensions were rising and ignored requests to send more protection to the embassy. They turned this horrible attack into a media shit storm and attempted to place all the blame on Obama and his administration. To make them seem even worse conservatives spread rumors around and begged the question, “Why does Obama hate Americans?”

Of course anyone with a brain can see that this was a republican attempt to discredit the president and make him seem like an anti-American Islamic socialist that wants to see Americans die and wants to turn the country on its head. In order to do this they had to prove that Obama refused to send backup to the Benghazi Embassy even after multiple requests to the White House for additional assistance. Of course, the only news network that was trying to discredit the White House was Fox News. They wanted the American people to believe this crock about the president not caring about Americans enough to send out reinforcements. Unfortunately for Fox they had all the answers and knew exactly why the president did this, they just couldn’t prove anything.

Recently though on the CBS program 60 Minutes they covered the Benghazi story, as one man was brave enough to step up to the plate and tell the truth about what really happened in Benghazi, and how he tried to warn the White House many times and that his voice fell on deaf ears. This man is Morgan Jones and he was a security officer sent to protect the Benghazi mission.

60 Minutes did this report based on everything Jones had told them. He told them that he warned the Obama Administration that more backup was needed, and that he was there during the September 11^th 2012 attack on the Benghazi embassy.

When this was aired on television Fox News jumped on it, almost as if they were relieved. Fox News personalities were talking about how the story has to be true because 60 Minutes wouldn’t cover the story if it wasn’t. They were also touting themselves for breaking the “scandal” story saying “60 Minutes reported on things that Fox uncovered months ago.”

Fox was generally happy now that another news network corroborated their insinuations about the Benghazi attack. They’ve been so hell bent on finding out exactly what happened and trying to get the American people to see if as a huge act or corruption and cover-ups designed to kill US citizens and protect our anti-American president. So this was exactly what Fox needed, someone who was there who can backup everything they have said about this incident, and now they’ve got him. Only problem is that the story that Morgan Jones gave CBS was entirely false.

CBS discovered that the incident report Jones filed with his employer was completely different from what he told 60 Minutes. The New York Times discovered that he told the FBI that he was no where near the compound during the attack, a claim which Jones says is a smear attack against him and not true despite the fact that the report he gave the FBI are consistent with statements he gave to Blue Mountain, a British-based contractor hired by the state department to secure the perimeter around the compound.

After this was all discovered 60 Minutes had this to say:

60 Minutes has learned of new information that undercuts the account told to us by Morgan Jones of his actions on the night of the attack on the Benghazi compound.
We are currently looking into this serious matter to determine if he misled us, and if so, we will make a correction.

Fox News had nothing to do with releasing this story, as all they did was talk about the 60 Minutes report and brag about how this was all stuff that they had uncovered months ago…they just never had any proof. And now that this guy Morgan Jones comes up and says he has proof they are all super excited to tout themselves as great investigative journalists. But much to their chagrin the story turned out to be false and Morgan, whose REAL NAME is actually Dylan Davies lied to 60 Minutes about being there during the attack. Fox has a really bad reputation for saying things with no proof to back them up. They can’t even find someone to lie for them; they have to wait until another news organization covers it. And even though it turned out to be lies, Fox will only use this situation to make other news networks out to be untrustworthy.

You see, Fox plays semantics and so they can never be held responsible for the things the say. Just like Bill O told Jon Stewart on his show, “I’m an opinion man” even though Jon told him that he may see himself as an opinion man but he consistently delivers his opinions as fact and leaves little to the imagination otherwise. Of course Bill firmly denies this, but it’s true. Bill even likes to call his show the “No Spin Zone” yet he wants to say he is an opinion man who doesn’t present his information as factual. Jesus H. Christ if that’s not spin I don’t know what is.









So this is just a case of Fox jumping on any lie they can propagate and spread. Lucky for them the majority of their viewers are not very smart and much like Fox News itself the viewers never bother to check facts. So unfortunately I can see people talking about this all like it is real and wasn’t debunked. So just remember folks, when someone tries to tell you that Fox News was right on the money about Benghazi because of this misleading 60 Minutes report make sure you correct them and tell them to check their facts. Because this is the type of bullshit that will be spread around the streets and of course social media sites like it already has been. You just need to remember one simple thing about Benghazi: Republicans cut spending on protecting embassies, which is exactly why the Benghazi embassy was under protected.  

FROM THE ARTICLE:

On Wednesday morning, CNN anchor Soledad O'Brien asked the Utah Republican if he had "voted to cut the funding for embassy security."

"Absolutely," Chaffetz said. "Look we have to make priorities and choices in this country. We have…15,000 contractors in Iraq. We have more than 6,000 contractors, a private army there, for President Obama, in Baghdad. And we’re talking about can we get two dozen or so people into Libya to help protect our forces. When you’re in tough economic times, you have to make difficult choices. You have to prioritize things.”

The Obama Administration had nothing to do with cutting the funds, and because of the republican led cut back the Benghazi Embassy was left under protected and the White House had it’s hands tied and couldn’t send out extra help. And now they want to turn around and blame it all on the president and Hilary Clinton? What a waste of time…



SOURCES:
Republicans Admit Cutting Funds for Embassies
60 Minutes Apologizes for Misleading Benghazi Report
 

Rand Paul Calls Benghazi ‘worst tragedy since 9/11’

Well I’m back. After giving my brain a rest for a few weeks I could no longer hold in my frustration over the climate of American politics. With gun control debates in full swing and the media humping every opportunity to cover a school shooting I just needed to step away from the news and relax, just kind of clear my head for a bit.

But today I came across this interesting little piece about the Benghazi attack that happened last year. Rand Paul actually said that it was the ‘worst tragedy since 9/11’ and puts the blame squarely on Hillary Clinton’s shoulders.

For those who forgot, the Benghazi incident occurred on September 11^th 2012 in the Libyan city of Benghazi, where armed group of people killed four Americans. “Between 125 and 150 gunmen, "some wearing the Afghan-style tunics favored by Islamic militants," are reported to have participated in the assault.^[24][25][26] Some had their faces covered and wore flak jackets.^[27]”

The thing that bothers me about this is the fact that Benghazi really wasn’t the worst terror attack since 9/11. There have been so many others, and many Americans have died in terror attacks after 9/11 while under Bush’s administration. Have we all forgotten about that? Have we forgotten that terror attacks have been down since the tail end of the Clinton administration? 

The 9/11 terror attacks were on US soil, and approximately 3,000 people were killed, hundreds more injured, and many more died later because of diseases they contracted from the dust and debris of the fallen towers. That truly is the worst attack against this country since the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.

And it’s not like this sort of thing didn’t happen after 9/11. 19 US Consulates have been attacked since 1979 and seven of those were under the Bush administrations watch. Why is it that no action was taken against the Bush administration? Why is it that when stuff like this happens when a Democrat is in office that suddenly this sort of thing is bad and isn’t just a fact of life?

Fox News is acting like the Benghazi attack was some horrible attack the likes have never been seen before on or off the battlefield. But when you think about it this sort of thing has been happening since before Bush’s time, before Obama’s time, before Clinton’s time. This isn’t some new phenomenon that is somehow only now manifesting itself because there is a Democrat in office.

I think saying that this attack is worse than 9/11 is pure 100% political exaggeration on the part of Republicans. We’ve had a lot of good Americans die on their watch, and several US Consulate attacks in which Americans lost their lives, and we are going to focus on this one now because Obama is in office? When Bush was in office and the Dems tried to condemn him for attacks that occurred under his watch did the right-wing not say that there was no way to know when an attack is going to happen and that all attacks are tragedies but we are in a time of war and these things happen and you shouldn’t say disparaging things about your President?

Well hey, guess what folks? We are still at war! No matter how much we Democrats would like to believe that Obama has ended the war in Iraq and Afghanistan doesn’t mean that it’s so. We still have military presences there, and we are still fighting people there. Just because Obama sent some troop’s home doesn’t mean the climate of the war has changed. And the right-wingers are right too, these things happen during times of war. So why is it that they can say that and get away with it when their guy is in office, but when a Democrat is in office it has to be the ‘worst tragedy since 9/11’?

I’ll tell you what the worst tragedy since 9/11 was, it was the war in Iraq. 3,542 American soldiers died in combat while serving in Iraq, some of them had their bodies dragged through the streets and hung from large over passes as trophies as their charred guts spilled out onto the street. War is hell and is the ultimate tragedy which trumps any US Consulate attack.

Those Americans who died during this attack were brave people. You have to be brave to be a diplomat in a potentially hostile foreign country. You don’t just hide behind the curtains; you have to mix with the people, mingle with them, and get to know them. That is the function of a diplomat, and that is a pretty scary thing to do if you think about it. Your life is at risk every moment you are putting yourself out there, making yourself vulnerable in the name of diplomacy and peace.

This is just another case of politicians using certain events for their own gain. The Democrats are doing the same thing right now with gun control, and now the Republicans are doing the same thing with Benghazi. Pointing at each other and trying to point out flaws and place blame.

The blame should really be placed on all of our shoulders, meaning the American people. Either way you slice it we are allowing this type of bullshit to propagate, this he said she said, diversionary tactics type of bullshit which all politicians use against use. To say that the attack in Benghazi was the worst tragedy to happen since 9/11 is like saying that an assault rifles ban will stop school shootings. It just isn’t real, folks.

Obama’s Big Bad Benghazi Cover-up

On September 11^th 2012 an armed group of militants attacked a US Diplomatic consulate in Libya which killed four Americans and injured three Americans and seven Libyans. The next day President Obama addressed the people calling it an “outrageous attack.” And then the story was over with and everyone went back on with their lives. Well, not exactly.

Leave it up to the Republicans. John McCain came out blasting President Obama after comments he made at his Rose Garden address. McCain is blaming the Obama Administration of a cover-up in this incident in Benghazi, and rightfully so since Obama never actually told the American people that a diplomatic mission to Libya was attacked.

Wait a second…yes, he did tell the American people that a diplomatic mission in Benghazi was attacked. So wait, I’m confused about this now. What exactly was the cover-up? I’m looking as hard as I can to see it, reading between each line I can, but it is no where to be found. The more I think of it the more it boggles my mind. There was an attack on a US diplomatic mission to Benghazi…four Americans were killed…the next day President Obama spoke about it openly…what did he say?

TRANSCRIPT OF OBAMA SPEECH:

“Yesterday, four of these extraordinary Americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in Benghazi.  Among those killed were our Ambassador, Chris Stevens, as well as Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith.  We are still notifying the families of the others who were killed.  And today, the American people stand united in holding the families of the four Americans in our thoughts and in our prayers.”

…

“It's especially tragic that Chris Stevens died in Benghazi because it is a city that he helped to save.  At the height of the Libyan revolution, Chris led our diplomatic post in Benghazi.  With characteristic skill, courage, and resolve, he built partnerships with Libyan revolutionaries, and helped them as they planned to build a new Libya.  When the Qaddafi regime came to an end, Chris was there to serve as our ambassador to the new Libya, and he worked tirelessly to support this young democracy, and I think both Secretary Clinton and I relied deeply on his knowledge of the situation on the ground there.  He was a role model to all who worked with him and to the young diplomats who aspire to walk in his footsteps.”

…

“No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.  Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America.  We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act.  And make no mistake, justice will be done.”

OK yeah so he openly spoke about it, but where the hell is the cover-up part? What are John McCain and the GOP saying about the Obama Administration? As I searched for this answer I found a lovely piece at www.breitbart.com which features quotes from Bret Baier of the Fox News Network. “Oh boy,” I thought.

So it turns out that this cover-up the GOP and right-winged talking heads are going on about is that the attack was actually a terrorist attack and that the President is trying to cover it up. But wait a second…did Obama say “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation”? Is it not clear that he is saying in this very sentence that the attack against US diplomats in Benghazi was in fact a terrorist attack? Not according to Bret Baier of Fox News, no.

As I said, I found this little piece from an article Bret wrote and posted on his own website. If you’re familiar with Faux News you can smell the BS spin job they use to try to say that President Obama is covering up the fact that the attack in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.

FROM THE ARTICLE:

These are two crucial answers in the big picture.  Right after getting out of the Rose Garden, where, according to the second debate and other accounts he definitively called the attack terrorism, Obama is asked point blank about not calling it terrorism. He blinks and does not push back.

Can you smell it? It smells like ‘Pure Grade A 100% Faux News Bullshit’. The spin tactic being used here is so out in the open and overt that a five year old could point it out.

First off, let’s go into this article that I found. It’s actually about Faux News man Bret Baier who says that he has proof that Obama is covering up the fact that the Benghazi attack was actually a terrorist attack. He states that a CBS interview with the President was recorded in October in which this was said:

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, do you believe that this was a terrorism attack?

OBAMA: Well it’s too early to tell 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.


He then goes on to say that the recording wasn’t aired for more than six weeks and that they still failed to air the interview even when questions about the incident were being raised during the second presidential debate. As I read, the author states that when asked if the Benghazi attack was in fact a terrorist attack the moderator, Candy Crowley, stepped in and spoke for Obama falsely stating that Obama in fact called it an act of terror on September 12^th 2012 at his Rose Garden interview.

Falsely stated? How did the moderator falsely state that Obama called the act an act of terror when he did in fact say it was an act of terror? The author goes on to make the argument that if this didn’t happen and the moderator didn’t step in and lie for Obama that Romney would have won the debate, and that CBS withheld this interview to assist President Obama cover-up any dishonesty about the attacks and assist him in his reelection campaign.   

So here is the spin. Obama says in his Rose Garden interview that “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation,” essential labeling the attack as a terror attack. It’s not so much because he said it was an act of terror but because he can’t prove it’s an act of terror, and the GOP is using this as an excuse to call into question the credibility of the Obama Administration. Merely because there are different people with different opinions on what actually happened in Benghazi the right-wing political machine is using the incident to call the Obama Administration into question about an alleged cover-up on whether or not the attack was terrorist in nature or not. If Obama says in a speech that terror will never shake our resolve than isn’t it clear he is just covering his ass on both sides of the spectrum? Can’t he think to himself, “Well we don’t know if this is a terror attack yet, but either way terror will not shake us”? I am wouldn’t that be a very poignant thing to say to keep our spirits up? No, instead the GOP wants to try to call Obama a liar because there were conflicting reports on whether or not it was a terrorist attack and because he didn’t have to answer his question at the debate.

But the truth is simple, if Obama had come out during the debate and said, “Yes, terrorists did in fact attack a US Diplomatic mission to Benghazi” the Romney campaign would have turned right around and said, “See? There was a terrorist attack on Americans in Benghazi and Obama never saved them. He is weak against terror.” This is just another use of political spin and word play and they know it.

Word play and semantics are being used here heavily and lets face it they are simple tactics to use and they work for any argument you are in. You just have to change a word or the meaning or a word to make your argument. It’s not ‘Gun Control’ it’s ‘Preventative measures against violent crimes’, it’s not a ‘job’ it’s a ‘career’, don’t say the word ‘compromise’, don’t say ‘capitalism’ say ‘free economic market’, don’t say ‘taxes the rich’ say ‘takes from the rich’, they are not ‘middle class’ they are ‘hardworking tax payers’, ‘government spending’ is ‘waste’, ‘entrepreneur’ is ‘job creator’. And in this case we can also define what these are based on who is currently in office, Republican or Democrat.

And in this case of the Benghazi Terror Attack Cover-up the word terrorism is now redefined. You see if Bush were in office this case would be easy, it would be an act of terror, plain and simple, no need for investigation. Why? Because it happened to Americans in a foreign country, the attackers were Muslim (or possibly Muslim) and it happened AFTER 9/11/01. See that? Those are the ingredients for terror under Bush's watch. But the Republicans are willing to change their view when it's a Democrat in office. Now the definition has changed and we should investigate this to see if it was a terror attack, because terror attacks are so deeply thought out and largely complex and don't require just a few Americans to die by the hands of foreigners in a land where maybe there are terrorists. You see now for a terror attack to be considered a terror attack one needs to form a terror group and intentionally attack American interests.

So as you can see, he Republicans have a back up plan for just in case not all of their criterion are met for a terrorist attack. See if there is no terror group that comes out and takes responsibility the right-wingers can say, “Oh see this doesn't fit the bill of what we know as a terror attack. This Benghazi thing was just some protest that went violent and unfortunately some Americans got caught up in it and were killed.” And BOOM, just like that Obama’s image is changed. He isn’t a guy who is weak on terror, he’s a liar who called a protest riot a terrorist attack. And how can the American people trust a president who can't tell the difference between a protest riot and a terrorist attack?

As usual I had a hard time wondering what the right-wingers are trying to get at. Are they trying to say that Obama is covering up the fact the the Benghazi attack was a terrorist attack, or are they are calling him a liar for calling it an attack. They can go either way with this issue and like all politics it is bunk. We shouldn't be worrying about whether or not it's a terrorist act by a politicians definition or not
  Let’s take time to step away from the TV for a moment and make our own decision without some talking head political pundit or politician. Lets think about the word terror and what it means, because in my view any act of violence is an act or terror. Violence is terrible, terrifying, and for lack of a better word, terror. Terror has no exact definition unless the word is being used for political gain. War is terror, being mugged is terror, flying a plane into a building is terror, and getting caught up in a violent riot is terror. It’s not that complicated folks, all of these things are terror so don't let the right-wing media change your view on what terror actually is. 


SOURCES: 

www.breitbart.com Proof Obama Refused to Call Benghazi Terror CBS Covered-Up

President Obama's Rose Garden Speech (VIDEO)

President Obama's Rose Garden Speech (TRANSCRIPT)