View Full Version : When is Fox going to apologise for all their lies?

12-20-2012, 09:08 AM
The result, the report said, was a "security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place."

But while the unclassified version of the report, which was released Tuesday night, is undeniably harsh in its analysis of the State Department's management ahead of the attack, it also appears to undermine a number of the more outlandish charges made during the heat of the uproar this fall.

For instance, while many figures -- led, in large part, by the news analysts at Fox News -- suggested that the administration had opted to watch the crisis unfold rather than send military reinforcements, the report found "no evidence of undue delays in decision making or denial of support from Washington."

Many critics of the administration had raised question about why a team of specially trained military operators had been dispatched to an airfield in Italy but not, apparently, sent to help fend off the attack.

Instead, the report concluded that the response by all agencies involved was "timely and appropriate," and despite speculation to the contrary, "there simply was not enough time given the speed of the attacks for armed U.S. military assets to have made a difference."

Another accusation rebutted by the report was the notion that senior-level officials had in some way refused to permit CIA operatives working out of a nearby annex to travel to the main compound to assist in repelling the attack.

That detail, first reported by Fox News, was not correct, the report said.


12-20-2012, 09:42 AM
Is that a trick question, lol?!?!

If they report on these findings at all, it will be to falsely state it supports their prior position.

One tricky way they seemed to have a point was that renewed assaults occurred some hours later, which they turned into a 7-hour firefight that went unsupported. But those were discrete and different attacks, at different places, with hours between them.

12-20-2012, 01:48 PM
If either of you ever expressed a similar concern over MSNBC you would have some crec.

12-20-2012, 06:08 PM
Heh! We have plenty crec, for your information, lol!

I don't see much MSNBC-- 2 hours of Chris Hayes 2 weekend days, maybe Rachel or Lawrence one show each or less a week. I watch little Fox, but about half that much.

I've seen both Chris and Rachel correct on-air falsehoods they may state pretty quickly, as in, typically, the next show. I've seen Chris Wallace make a correction once or twice.

The last times MSNBC was consistently wrong without corrections that I saw were the cases of Hillary v. Obama in the 2008 primary season (strongly anti-Hillary), and what they said about the Trayvon Martin slaying (way over-running the evidence at hand, and leaving exculpatory evidence unmentioned, etc.)

I only wish Bozell's MRC did better work, instead of hackery. But catching him on Hannity the other night running down the worst in the lamestream media, I had to agree whole-heartedly with his assessment of Chris Matthews as himself a hack and quite an ignorant man. My only disagreement with Bozell was that he said he knew Matthews was smarter than that and knew better. Objection! Evidence lacking!

For now, if you want realistic and damning criticism of the MSNBC lineup, few do it better than Bob Somerby's dailyhowler.blogspot.com. He's WAY hard on the (so-called) left media, and calls them out for their lack of sound reasoning and hackery as it occurs. He's especially got it in for Maddow and O'Donnell, and not without reason, while maintaining a special still lower regard for Matthews. Try it, you might like it!