DescentBB

And to add to the media coverage do you know how much coverage MSNBC has given to the benghazi hearings.

UHM that would be ZERO. not one second was been given to what is potentially a cover-up that makes the watergate incident looks amateurish. Every other news agency us reporting on it some to greater degree then others. But zero coverage? Maybe they soukd chang their name to MSDNC and the left likes to rag on Fox. Ya no hypocrisy there. And personally I don't care about what the group of people that slick hangs out with think. People tend to hang with like minded people. So knowing how slick thinks its no surprise they think like he does.

Oh and I'll be waiting for the lib members of this board to defend MSDNC's lack of coverage on this issue

Didn’t slick say he retired?

Heh I thought that too Spidey

Spidey wrote:Didn’t slick say he retired?

From reality?

CUDA wrote:

Spidey wrote:Didn’t slick say he retired?

From reality?

No, that was a divorce…

woodchip wrote:Leave from where Ferny? America? This Board? Do try and enunciate your desires more clearly.

the thread. you can leave the thread if you don't like it. Did I really have to spell it out like this?

Feinstein: "When Hillary Clinton’s name is mentioned 32 times in a hearing, the point of the hearing is to discredit the Secretary of State


WOW immagine that slick was spouting DNC talking points whoda thunk that

Ferno wrote:

woodchip wrote:Leave from where Ferny? America? This Board? Do try and enunciate your desires more clearly.

the thread. you can leave the thread if you don't like it. Did I really have to spell it out like this?

Yes

I think the only person's credentials that this scandal will nuke is probably Hillary's. Good riddance. I wasn't looking forward for her as a presidential selection anyway. At the very least, Republicans are starting to looking petty and insular. Most Americans are too occupied with their other problems to care about the Benghazi tragedy in the larger scheme of things. I know it's sad for our lost diplomats, but it's not the big scandal Republicans are hoping for that will bring down Obama, which is what this whole "investigation" is really about. However, I think Obamacare might do the job very soon.

Spidey wrote:Didn’t slick say he retired?

if you read closely, I also said I took a consulting gig for 8 months that started a couple weeks back. Too lucrative and interesting to pass up.

CUDA wrote:And to add to the media coverage do you know how much coverage MSNBC has given to the benghazi hearings.

a fair amount.....I mean, I don't watch ANY network's cable news often, but they have covered the matter all along, and the one day last week I tuned in, they gave coverage to the hearings.

UHM that would be ZERO. not one second was been given to what is potentially a cover-up that makes the watergate incident looks amateurish.

blatantly untrue, as noted above.....why do you feel resorting to lying bolsters your viewpoint? Who feeds you this crap?

Oh and I'll be waiting for the lib members of this board to defend MSDNC's lack of coverage on this issue

well, had they NOT been covering it at all, I would have supported your position, but that they merely aren't making it 60% of their entire news coverage as a certain other channel has been says nothing about MSNBC, but might speak to the intentions of the 'other' channel.

While I should have said "live" coverage the accusation stands

As NewsBusters previously reported, MSNBC gave no live coverage to yesterday’s congressional hearings on the September 11, 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi. Instead, the network aired a mere six minutes and 20 seconds of a highlight from the hearings. Those snippets were spread across four hours, and some of them were redundant.
Contrast that with the way MSNBC treated Hillary Clinton’s testimony on Benghazi back on January 23. On that occasion, the liberal cable network broadcast a whopping five hours and 28 minutes of live testimony.

You must have missed every single Sunday morning network news show today CUDA. It was wall-to-wall Benghazi discussions, with Issa and McCain still out there trying to beat that dead horse over and over. It still ain't gonna stick with the average American.

CUDA wrote:While I should have said "live" coverage the accusation stands

As NewsBusters previously reported, MSNBC gave no live coverage to yesterday’s congressional hearings on the September 11, 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi. Instead, the network aired a mere six minutes and 20 seconds of a highlight from the hearings. Those snippets were spread across four hours, and some of them were redundant.
Contrast that with the way MSNBC treated Hillary Clinton’s testimony on Benghazi back on January 23. On that occasion, the liberal cable network broadcast a whopping five hours and 28 minutes of live testimony.

because her testimony might have actually been directly relevant, not BS and hearsay from disgruntled employees. She WAS the Secretary of State, so I can see carrying that live. Devoting the whole day to that nonsense was overkill, as was noted in the cafeteria at my workplace.

callmeslick wrote:

Spidey wrote:Didn’t slick say he retired?

if you read closely, I also said I took a consulting gig for 8 months that started a couple weeks back. Too lucrative and interesting to pass up.

Read closely where?

callmeslick wrote:
because her testimony might have actually been directly relevant, not BS and hearsay from disgruntled employees. She WAS the Secretary of State, so I can see carrying that live. Devoting the whole day to that nonsense was overkill, as was noted in the cafeteria at my workplace.

Her testimony was irrelevant as she didn't have a clue to what really happened. Maybe if she and that bumbling caricature of a president got their asses out of bed, went to the situation room and followed what happened, maybe...just maybe Hillary's testimony would of been worth something. I bet she didn't even bother to take part in in editing the talking points because her boss told her she didn't need to. But of course slick, you know what it is like to be led by the nose as much as you disseminate the party line.

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote:While I should have said "live" coverage the accusation stands

As NewsBusters previously reported, MSNBC gave no live coverage to yesterday’s congressional hearings on the September 11, 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi. Instead, the network aired a mere six minutes and 20 seconds of a highlight from the hearings. Those snippets were spread across four hours, and some of them were redundant.
Contrast that with the way MSNBC treated Hillary Clinton’s testimony on Benghazi back on January 23. On that occasion, the liberal cable network broadcast a whopping five hours and 28 minutes of live testimony.

because her testimony might have actually been directly relevant, not BS and hearsay from disgruntled employees. She WAS the Secretary of State, so I can see carrying that live. Devoting the whole day to that nonsense was overkill, as was noted in the cafeteria at my workplace.

directly relevant when compared to the testimony of CIA director Petreas that said they knew it was Terrorism within hours and reported it as such, and to Deputy director Hicks that said he personally told her it was terrorism immediately. you mean that kind of relevant? directly relevant and contrary to the testimony of the man that investigated the incident and a man that was there. Directly relevant to the emails that PROVE the CIA said it was terrorism and reported it to the Whitehouse as such. that kind of relevant??? nope no BS in her testimony


Funny I thought you knew what a liar looked like. amazing you don't see it in the SOS

<mod>
So, I got a report about this thread, and I have to say... I'm impressed.

Despite all the vehement finger-pointing and partisan slinging, you guys have kept it fairly on-topic and it hasn't devolved into personal stuff. Let's keep it that way.
</mod>

Foil, we are all grown-ups here. We don't need gold stars and warm fuzzy's.

Obama today says:

"Admitted 'lessons needed to be learned' from Benghazi but said it was up to Congress to approve more money for military to provide extra security in hotspots abroad"

Extra money Mr President? It was already testified months ago by Ms Lamb:

"State Department Official Charlene Lamb Testified Before The House Oversight Committee That Budget Cuts Had Nothing To Do With Security Decisions In Benghazi."

It is sad that it appears our President is among the low information group. If he was at all paying attention to the congressional hearings, he would know what a idiot he now appears to be.

woodchip wrote:...

It is sad that it appears our President is among the low information group. If he was at all paying attention to the congressional hearings, he would know what a idiot he now appears to be.

But if the media doesn't call him out on his blatant lies he isn't an idiot. He is the brilliant politician they said he was....

Perhaps the media is finally waking up. Comments by Chris "Thriller" Matthews:

"What part of the presidency does Obama like? He doesn't like dealing with other politicians -- that means his own cabinet, that means members of the congress, either party. He doesn't particularly like the press.... He likes to write the speeches, likes to rewrite what Favreau and the others wrote for the first draft," Matthews said.

"So what part does he like? He likes going on the road, campaigning, visiting businesses like he does every couple days somewhere in Ohio or somewhere," Matthews continued. "But what part does he like? He doesn't like lobbying for the bills he cares about. He doesn't like selling to the press. He doesn't like giving orders or giving somebody the power to give orders. He doesn't seem to like being an executive.”

On Tuesday's program, Matthews similarly called Obama "a ship with the engine off."

So like the title of a old BB King song, "The Thrill Is Gone" and Obama will go down in history as a man the people had high expectations in but failed to deliver.

That was pretty evident during the healthcare debates.

I watched ABC double down on this talking point crap last night, saying those emails told all and incriminated all. 'Cept the emails they got came from Republican sources and were, um, slightly altered. CBS cleared the air last night after reading the actual emails released by the administration. Nothing here to see with this Republican farce folks.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-5 ... -reported/

tunnelcat wrote:I watched ABC double down on this talking point crap last night, saying those emails told all and incriminated all. 'Cept the emails they got came from Republican sources and were, um, slightly altered. CBS cleared the air last night after reading the actual emails released by the administration. Nothing here to see with this Republican farce folks.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-5 ... -reported/

You are really shameless to portray the whole thing as "nothing to see" when there is is quite a bit there.

When Bush was in office I seem to recall TC finding all sorts of things to see even though Bush didn't have a tenth of what Obama's admin has coming to light

woodchip wrote:When Bush was in office I seem to recall TC finding all sorts of things to see even though Bush didn't have a tenth of what Obama's admin has coming to light

Someone's looking through Bush-colored glasses. They tend to fuzz over the big heaps of crap Bush pulled over everyone's 9/11 traumatized eye's. Obama is just using those new Patriot Act powers that Bush gave him. Powers that Congress and everyone thought were A OK at the time. Not so wonderful when a Dem's using them is it? I don't condone most of it either.