Dude. It’s over. You guys lost. Again. OK?
Well. I’m OK with that. Took me a while to get over it, what with the hangover, and all, but yeah, I’m OK with it now.
That’s not what I believe, that’s the facts. The accusation was that the CIA concluded right away that the attacks were carried out by terrorists and the White House rewrote Rice’s talking points to omit this unfavorable fact. Despite some breathless “oops, I misunderstood my source and repeated what he said verbatim!” reporting, that turned out not to be the case. The CIA had not come to that conclusion at that time. There was also a claim that Rice said the entire attack was spontaneous. That one was just a willful misinterpretation of what she said. Nothing factual came of it- just another vague scandal/media cover up claim and the scuttling of Rice’s nomination as secretary of state.
There was also the shrill accusation that Obama refused to call it “terrorism”, since his press statement used the words “act of terror” instead. :rolleyes: 
The Atlantic has a fairly in-depth articleexamining to what extent the lamestream media actually ignored Benghazi. In sum, there’s ample evidence that they definitely did NOT ignore it.
I will grant that the news from CNN raises the prospect of a different kind of cover-up around Benghazi (one only incidentally related to the attack per se): that the CIA was in fact engaged in potentially dubious activity over there to begin with (e.g. covertly moving weapons to Syria?) and that the attack in Benghazi happened to focus unwanted public attention on that particular area of operation. OTOH, frankly the CNN article in my book isn’t all that well reported–mostly it’s just one unnamed source saying the CIA /really/ doesn’t want its people talking about this operation, God knows why–so I can’t blame other reporters for not diving into the story. And no one is stopping CNN’s own reporters from hammering further on it, if they have sources/info no one else has.
No, you’re wrong. The right wing source is not the New York Times, it is the website of the Media Research Center, and this is how they describe themselves: “MRC’s sole mission is to expose and neutralize the propaganda arm of the Left: the national news media.”
What I quoted was the Media Research Center stating that two networks ran seven stories on McCain. The MRC did not state in that article that those seven stories were qualitatively deficient. If you want to take the MRC to task for being too soft on NBC and CBS reporting, be my guest… but if a right wing publication doesn’t criticize the content of stories from the “propaganda arm of the Left,” I’m not inclined to conclude that they are being too easy on NBC and CBS.
Those are fair criticism of the WaPo articles.
I’d say the current mayor of San Diego is a good example of this (“Filthy” Filner).
Have you read any other posts? He’s been roundly condemned by everybody, the news coverage has been extensive, and he’ll be forced out of office pretty soon.
So you’re saying, if I understand you correctly, that you’re basing your claim that there were reports about it - which neither you nor I have been able to find online - on your assumption that a right wing source would be as harsh on the media as possible, so if they didn’t criticize the media for writing zero articles about the prostitution angle, then the media must have written some.
I don’t think there’s much in that. But I suppose it depends on your assumptions going in about right wing sources. If you assume that any right wing source would take a rabid dog all out attack mode about anything, then perhaps it makes some sense.
FWIW, here’s a different RW source complaining of this very thing - that NBC covered the Menendez scandal but failed to mention the sex angle. That article is dated 1/31, so I guess it’s possible that NBC started to mention it between then and 2/11. But my guess is that this is one of the 7 stories mentioned by the RW source, which were focused on the financial angle.
Just as a general question, do you think the Media Research Center is a reputable organization doing a pretty good job at what they intend to do? Or would you say they are more like extremists with an ad to grind? Because my impression of them is definitely the latter.
Never heard of them (that I can remember).
They have a web site, offering acess to Brent Bozell’s opinions. Also, hamburgers. I could link you to the site, but feel somehow that would be wrong.
But this, from SourceWatch, is most damning of all:
The talking points issued to Rice said otherwise. You have to be barking to suggest they were not expressly choreographed from the WH. This is the view from the WH specifically for public consumption. The question to ask is why did they deliberately send her out with a BS story. the answer is pretty obvious, 8 hrs of attacks and no support. The WH did nothing.
The answer is that the situation hadn’t been fully assessed yet because that takes time. Unfortunately that’s not a damning enough answer, so the coverup story was invented.
Is that another way to say you haven’t found Kerry’s lie yet? 
Is this the part where you show us what they could and should have done but chose not to? We’re all still waiting for that one, too.
the situation was readily apparent. they were under heavy fire. There was no indication of a protest.
I already cited his testimony without evidence given before Congress.
You mean besides the group specifically trained to deal with such events (FAST) that was sent 8 hrs after the attack started?
or the lack of support after the previous attacks:
Security Incidents Prior to the Benghazi Attack
December 2011: Terror plot thwarted, but Benghazi emergency plan warns of many Islamic terrorists still operating in area.
March 2012: U.S. Embassy in Tripoli lead security officer, RSO Eric Nordstrom, requests additional security but later testified he received no response.
April 10, 2012: An explosive device is thrown at a convoy carrying U.N. envoy Ian Martin.
May 22, 2012: A rocket-propelled grenade hits the offices of the International Red Cross.
June 6, 2012: An IED explodes outside the Benghazi consulate compound.
June 11, 2012: An RPG hits a convoy carrying the British Ambassador. The U.K. closes its consulate. Col. Wood, military Site Security Team (SST) commander, is in Benghazi, and helps with emergency response.
July 2012: RSO Nordstrom again requests additional security (perhaps via cable signed by Amb. Stevens dated July 9, see below).
July 9, 2012: Amb. Stevens sends a cable requesting continued help from military SST and State Dept. MSD (Mobile Security Deployment team) through mid-Sept. 2012, saying that benchmarks for a drawdown have not been met. The teams are not extended.
A series of unsuccessful attacks happened in a war zone. Eventually, 3 people died in a slightly-more successful attack. People with benefit of hindsight say “there should have been more security.” If that’s a “scandal,” one wonders how Reagan ever survived the political fallout from Beirut!