The Pardu

The Pardu
Watchful eyes and ears feed the brain, thus nourishing the brain cells.
Showing posts with label Ambassador Stevens. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ambassador Stevens. Show all posts

Thursday, May 8, 2014

Laura Ingraham Competes For Fox News "Top Liar"







Fox even entertains viewer with a 'foot fetish!"

As we move closer to the fall mid-term elections, is it me or is Fox News gone complete derangement? We are accustomed to the grovelled voice Laura Ingraham's mis-guided opine and punditry, but her most recent case of constipation of the brain accompanied by diarrhea of the mouth, is a real top of the mountain "lie."


Snopes published a CNN video broadcast (great read) on September 18, 2012, with evidence Ambassador Stevens was not killed in the US Consulate attack. Stevens was, factually, rescued from the burned-out and smoldering building by sympathetic Libyans. He died in a local hospital within hours of his extraction from the Consulate.


CNN (well over 1.5 years ago)
___________________________

Now for a Fox News perspective. If I located the Snopes piece in two minutes, Fox News managers are certainly aware of the truth regarding "dragged through the streets." Fox News managers continue to pull the viewers around like a crafty marionette team with illusions of "Mogadishu."

Laura Ingraham is a far cry from the skirting bigot and "pepper spray as a vegetable" validator (in chief) Megyn Kelly. When she delivers as follows with lies and manipulation of viewers, one has to wonder about Kelly's and Fox News to commitment to outright lies and propaganda.


PolitiFact.comThe Truth-O-Meter Says:
Laura Ingraham: U.S. ambassador 'was dragged through the street' in Benghazi
Conservative radio host Laura Ingraham restated a debunked talking point Sunday, claiming that the body of U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens was "dragged through the street" following the 2012 attack on a U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi. 
"We have to not forget, we have four dead Americans," Ingraham said during a roundtable discussion about the Benghazi attack on ABC's This Week. "The ambassador's body was dragged through the street. Okay? It was beyond heartbreaking and beyond infuriating." 
Stevens' body was not dragged through the street, at least not in the way Ingraham suggests, multiple accounts and three official reviews make clear. 
The bottom line: Good Samaritans took Stevens to a hospital where he could receive medical treatment. 
The most recent summary of the events came from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in January 2014. In an appendix, the report provides a timeline. It has this entry for 1 a.m. Sept. 12, 2012: 
"Local Libyans found the Ambassador at the Mission Facility and brought him to a local hospital. Despite attempts to revive him, Ambassador Stevens had no heartbeat and had perished from smoke inhalation." 
Two other government bodies said much the same thing. An Accountability Review Board, headed by former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mike Mullen and veteran diplomat Thomas Pickering, declared that Stevens was brought to the hospital by six civilians. "To the best knowledge of the Board these were ‘good Samaritans’ among the hordes of looters and bystanders," the review concluded. 
The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee -- controlled by Republicans -- reported that "local Libyans found the remains of Ambassador Stevens in the main diplomatic building at the Benghazi Mission and transported him to the hospital. The Libyans apparently did not realize who the Ambassador was, but they alerted the State Department of his location by using the cell phone that was in the Ambassador’s pocket. Libyan doctors tried unsuccessfully to resuscitate Ambassador Stevens upon his arrival at the hospital." 
The Associated Press interviewed the Libyan doctor who treated Stevens. CNN spoke to Libyans who said they had found Stevens. The CNN report includes amateur video that shows rescuers pulling Stevens through a window. 
It seems established fact that Libyans brought Stevens directly to the hospital and there were no signs that anything else took place. 
Our ruling 
Ingraham said that the body of Ambassador Stevens was dragged through the street. We reached out to Ingraham but did not hear back.
After reading three government reports and independent press accounts, we find that Stevens, overcome by smoke from the fire, was brought to a Libyan hospital where efforts to revive him failed. To be dragged through the streets implies disrespect. There are no reports of public abuse of his body. 
This claim was debunked long ago and the truth has been widely available. We rate Ingraham's claim False.
StumbleUpon

Sunday, April 6, 2014

Liz Cheney On Fox News Sunday: CIA Torture Report Anyone?

"Stop ‘political’ investigation of torture....."

Fox News again Dick Cheney's daughter, Liz, another run for its viewers. As expected Cheney fulfilled her political and propaganda role in attacking developing attention to US torture during Bush/Cheneys "crusades in the Middle East." As Diane Feinstein's Senate Security Committee forwards an extensive report (four years investigation and compilations) to the White House. 

Let's take our quick Fox News at work  look, starting with facts related to US embassy and consulate attacks. The Raw Story piece then follows and we close with linkage to pieces related to Ambassador Steven's refusal of additional security at least twice in months prior to the attack.







Liz Cheney: Stop ‘political’ investigation of torture and focus more on Benghazi (via Raw Story )
Fox News contributor Liz Cheney on Sunday argued that a United States Senate report on Bush-era torture was “political” and that lawmakers should spend more time investigating President Barack Obama’s role in failing to prevent terrorist attacks…
________________________________________

In 2013 many sources reported Ambassador Stevens had, in fact, refused additional, a security at the US Embassy and Consulate. The reports are contested by the Gregory Hicks, a Stevens deputy and the GOP. 

Official: Amb. Stevens Refused Additional Security

benghazi debris 600x400
U.S. envoy Chris Stevens refused offers of more security before the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya in which he was killed, McClatchy Newspapers reported. 
Why Stevens turned down the offers was unclear, given embassy officials during an Aug. 15 meeting concluded they could not defend the consulate in Benghazi amid deteriorating conditions in the city, government officials told McClatchy in an article published Tuesday. 
In a cable, the embassy outlined the circumstances and said it would detail what it needed in a separate cable. 
"In light of the uncertain security environment, US Mission Benghazi will submit specific requests to US Embassy Tripoli for additional physical security upgrades and staffing needs by separate cover," said the cable, which was first reported by Fox News.
Rather than wait for the second cable, however, Army Gen. Carter Ham, then-commander of the U.S. Africa Command, called Stevens and asked if the embassy needed a special security team, the officials said. Stevens told Ham it did not, the government officials said. 
During a meeting several weeks later, Ham again asked Stevens if he wanted additional military security and again Stevens said no, the officials told McClatchy. 
"He didn't say why. He just turned it down," one official said, speaking anonymously. 
McClatchy said the offer of aid and Stevens' refusal were not revealed in either the State Department's Accountability Review Board investigation of the Benghazi events or during congressional hearings and reports issued into what happened Sept. 11, 2011, when the consulate was stormed and Stevens and three other diplomatic staffers were killed.
Read More linked above

Report: Officials say Stevens turned down extra Benghazi security




Share on facebook?hare on twitterShare on emailShare on google_plusone_shareMore Sharing Services20U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, who died with three other Americans in last year’s attack in Benghazi, Libya, turned down offers of additional security from military personnel on two occasions, according to a report released late Tuesday from McClatchy newspapers.The report cites two anonymous government officials who said “the senior U.S. military official in the region” twice approached Stevens with the offer, and Stevens twice declined. The report does not say why Stevens would have declined the offer.T

According to the report, U.S. officials at in Libya met in mid-August, about three weeks before the attack, to discuss the “uncertain security environment.” The meeting provoked Army Gen. Carter Ham to approach Stevens on two occasions with the offer of a special security team from the U.S. military. 
“He didn’t say why. He just turned it down,” a Defense official told McClatchy.
The report comes as GOP lawmakers have renewed their probe into the administration’s handling of the attack, questioning whether more resources could have been deployed before and during the assault to protect American lives.  
The McClatchy report says some lawmakers may have been aware of Stevens’s decision. 
GOP lawmakers, though, expressed skepticism over the report.




Benghazi attack was preventable, Senate panel says

By KIMBERLY DOZIER AP Intelligence Writer7:44 A.M.JAN. 15, 2014

Excerpt
"The security situation in Benghazi is 'trending negatively' and ... this daily pattern of violence would be the new normal for the foreseeable future," the head State Department officer in Benghazi was quoted as saying weeks before the attack. While the nearby CIA annex upgraded its security, the temporary mission did not, the report said. 
It said Stevens acknowledged the need for more security yet also turned down available U.S. military resources. The report said the Defense Department had provided a Site Security Team in Tripoli, made up of 16 special operations personnel. But the State Department decided not to extend the team's mission in August 2012, one month before the attack. In the weeks that followed, Gen. Carter Ham, then the head of the military's Africa Command, twice asked Stevens to employ the team, and twice Stevens declined, the report said.
Stevens had tried to arrange a local Libyan security force to replace the Americans, but the report said the force was never formed because of bureaucratic delays. 
Still, the report faults the U.S. military for failing to anticipate it might be called on. It also says there was confusion within the Pentagon as to the location of the CIA annex — and says the regional U.S. commander must know where such facilities are in the future.
White House spokesman Jay Carney said the committee report "largely reaffirms" earlier findings and that the security recommendations are consistent with steps the State Department has already taken. 
Read more flinked above 

Any degree of fallacy and fanciful B/S to deflect from her unrepentant and criminal father! StumbleUpon

Wednesday, October 23, 2013

Media Matters Benghazi Hoax eBook


When was the last time you heard the words Benghazi as an attack item against the Obama Administration? The words have become common mantra from the Right, despite a few important points. 

The following meme graphics show the extent to which the world changed for conservative America the minute Barack Obama declared interest in seeking the Democratic nomination in 2006.


A few issues related to Benghazi and embassy attacks need delineation at this point. Attacks on US embassies and consulates date back beyond the most notable invasion and taking of the Iranian Embassy in the late 1970s. As indicated by the memes, embassy and consulate security was an issue long before the Benghazi killings. There are reports Ambassador Stevens refused additional embassy security on three separate occasions once while visiting in Washington DC. We also know the US Congress refused funding for additional embassy security worldwide. Memory may have failed me, but I recall reading Congress denied additional funding or enacted cuts on three separate occasions. Yet, we have a political party using the Benghazi tragedy for political advantage.

What about Benghazi provided conservative and GOP political mantra?

The new Media Matters eBook will answer the question.



After a year of meticulously chronicling the right-wing lies behind the politicization of the American tragedy in Benghazi, Libya, Media Matters for America unveiled the definitive takedown of the Benghazi hoax.

An excerpt of The Benghazi Hoax, an e-book authored by David Brock and Ari Rabin-Havt explaining how the right-wing media turned a night of terror -- but also of valor -- into a phony scandal geared at damaging the Obama administration appeared Monday on Huffington Post:
No one could have imagined how quickly the murder of Stevens and three other Americans would become politicized by a hungry right-wing leviathan of savage punditry and pseudo-journalism. Nor could anyone fathom how the most basic facts would get twisted, contorted, and even invented out of thin air to create bogus narratives -- first to suggest that a U.S. president seeking re-election was incompetent, feckless, or sympathetic to terror, and then, when that faltered, to tarnish the reputation of his secretary of state as the public speculated she might run for president in 2016. Had the Benghazi attack not occurred at this unique moment -- on a day when the Republican candidate for the presidency and his promoters in the conservative media were desperate for a new storyline, especially one that would undercut the popular effect of the raid that killed Osama bin Laden the year before -- this tragedy might not have been converted into a political scandal.
The Benghazi Hoax exposes Mitt Romney's bungled and shocking campaign to use Benghazi in his failed race against President Obama as the attack was still ongoing. The book details 15 Benghazi myths that right-wing media and Republicans in Congress have used in a reprehensible effort to damage the Obama administration and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton -- a campaign that continues to this day.

The New York Times reported that Fox News did not respond when asked to comment on Media Matters' plans to advertise the book on Fox's airwaves:

Read More  via Media Matters
StumbleUpon