Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
Perhaps you were hypnotized by the breasts asking the questions?
She WAS good looking. I rechecked the video. Yup, the blue dress showed nice cleavage. Thanks for the retake. The first time I was more interested in the story. The parade of hot babes (info babes as Rush calls them) used to sell TV news loses a bit of its appeal after years of the same. But still works. Perhaps YOU were hypnotized by the breasts and missed the story.
I guess what was noteworthy about this story is that after the countless investigations, interviews and tens of thousands of pages of documents CBS managed to prove nothing new.
What was "new" is that a network other than FOX is questioning the administrations veracity. Among other "noteworthy" bits in the story is that the administration obviously lied about the attack. That they knew it was a terrorist attack from the beginning. That, as it later admitted, proper security measures were not taken. That there was a credible threat warning and nothing was done about it.
Of their two key interview subjects...Hix is on the record lying about the stand down order and the other guy...who? Some random British mercenary type?
Well . . . all the lies have not yet been determined. Hick's "lie" may merely be a semantic discrepancy. He was, at the time, a 22 year veteran in State with an impeccable reputation. The words "stand down" may never have been given, instead, the orders were "don't go." Or to wait. Or to do something else. Or, in some cases, no orders either way. I don't know which is the most damning, or the most beneficial for those in the embassy. To "stand down," or all those given orders, or lack of orders, would have led to the same result.
And the "other guy . . .who" was a highly trained and skilled professional in his trade who had helped keep American soldiers and security officials safe for 10 years. And who was hired by the State Dept. to train and supervise an UNARMED security team to protect the compound in Benghazi. He was an important contractor to the State Dept. and as such more than "Some random British mercenary type." And he warned State that the real (armed Lybian type) "mercenaries" which it hired to protect the annex should be gotten rid of, that they were useless and dangerous as they would run in the event of an attack. Which they did.
You do know he was shopping around his story for a fee? Even Fox turned him down on journalistic standards but CBS apparently has a higher tolerance for that sort of thing.
Ah . . . so FOX has journalistic standards now? So, do you shop around your services or give them away for free? Oh . . . the dishonesty in selling your story for filthy lucre!
-spence
|
By the way, apparently, according to this story, Benghazi WAS a hotbed of terrorism--among other things, the Al Qaeda flags flying around the city and atop government buildings . . .
And yes, as Buckman pointed out, it's amazing you try to discredit Hicks because you accept his semantic misstatement as a lie, when the ones you defend lied from the beginning of the Benghazi episode, and about so many other things including the ACA.