The Pardu

The Pardu
Watchful eyes and ears feed the brain, thus nourishing the brain cells.
Showing posts with label US Consulate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label US Consulate. 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, January 5, 2014

Conservatives Reject New York Times Report! The Horror On The Right


giveusliberty1776.blogspot.com


"Give US Liberty!"

The Right wants the liberty to frame the Benghazi attack on the US Consulate and killing of four Americans in their "likeness."  

Is there any level of low conservatives will not stoop to facilitated that they perceive as politically expedient?  

For sake of discussion, let's clarity a few points via a set of questions.  

Have you heard or read anyone or any entity (media, pundits, surrogates, et al) speak of or any comment about denial of congressional funding for additional US Embassy security?  
I. GOP Rep: I 'Absolutely' Voted To Cut Funding For Embassy Security .. 
II. Jason Chaffetz Admits House GOP Cut Funding For Embassy Securit

Are you aware Ambassador Stevens denied additional security twice over the yeas proceeding his death?
I. Ambassador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security ... 
II. The GOP's embassy security problem | MSNBC 
III. CNN Fact Check: What about the security in Benghazi? - CNN.com

Who is responsible for worldwide US Embassy Security? The responsibility is shared between the host country and the US State Department. PBS explored issues related to embassy security In a September 2012, four months after the tragic killings in May of that year.  (bold text added by The Pardu)
Who's responsible for security at an embassy -- the host country or the embassy itself?There's a dual responsibility. Under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, the host country is responsible for security of embassies. However, experience has taught the Americans that they can't rely on the host country to do that. They've experienced big losses in places like Kuwait, and Beirut a couple of times, even in Islamabad, Pakistan, when it was burnt to the ground. So they've learned they need to establish their own security bureaucracy to take care of that, and the Diplomatic Security Service (or law enforcement arm of the State Department) came into being in the mid-1980s. 
What can be done to step up security at U.S. embassies?One of the things you can do is draw down on personnel, which is what they did in Libya. They had an ordered departure, where they had nonessential personnel, family members and dependents evacuated from the country. The other thing is to draw down American personnel from vulnerable facilities like Benghazi and leave the local personnel in charge of the facility to conduct business because they are less of a target. They can increase the local police and military presence outside the perimeter. They can also bring in additional Marines like they have done now in Tripoli. 
Which embassies have a Marine presence?It's usually at the larger facilities, like Sanaa, Yemen, and Cairo, Egypt. At the smaller consulates and sometimes at smaller embassies, you don't have Marines stationed there. It depends on the post, the number of Americans there and the amount of classified information that needs to be protected. And sometimes even the political sensibilities of the country. 
Which embassies are most at risk of attacks?The State Department looks at that carefully. When you look at the profile of what happened in Benghazi, it was a recently established facility in a place where the bureaucracy hadn't caught up with it yet. So Congress hadn't appropriated money and the Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations didn't have the opportunity to really plan and build a new facility there that meets security specifications. Anytime you have a new embassy in that kind of situation, you don't really have any real security. Places that are new, like in South Sudan, which is a new country, might have issues. A well-established facility in the Middle East can be attacked -- as we've seen in Cairo and Sanaa -- but when it's a well-built, well-fortified structure, it's much more difficult to impact.

Before we move to a piece from The Moderate Voice via RePost US, we want to remind of the recent New York Times investigation report that casts serious and credible doubt of the Benghazi attacks as coordinated and enacted by Al Qaeda. The NYT report is at the core of what follows as The Moderate Voice delves into conservative rejection of the NYT investigation results.


As you read the following, we will be amazed if you come away with any impression beyond an unyielding desire from the Right to retain Benghazi as a political issue. The horrors of the attack and killings provide fodder against President Obama and political leverage to disparage Hillary Clinton should she decide to seek the Democratic nomination in 2016.

Conservative Republicans reject New York Times Benghazi findings (via The Moderate Voice)
The New York Times investigation that found Al Qaeda or a terrorist group was not behind the Benghazi attack is — as predicted here — being rejected by Republicans. As I noted in that post: This most likely won’t change the partisan attacks on…

StumbleUpon