[quote]nitial reports on almost any fast unfolding event are notoriously  inaccurate...
This is where much of the conspiracy media gets their ammo...

9/11... some British newsy reports a building down before it fell... and it becomes evidence..
It's just "fog of war" reporting... nothing new, except the scrutiny...
The very expression..."Fog of War"... comes from this...

"Early reports in Troy was,.. "Look,.. we have a gift"...
Oooops@!... Grin...

Look at early reports of that recent plane gone missing... or any of the weekly shootings we have now... / [quote]

Utterly irrelevant to the question of the regimes disinformation campaign about Benghazi. And you totally ignore the rest of my post. I don't understand why you are trying so hard to defend the indefensible. You asked why this incident is generating so much controversy. It's because of the cover-up. If the official reports had been at least truthful, even if not at first totally correct, this would have gone away in a few days or weeks, just like all the incidents on your list. Instead, for reasons that I don't think are completely clear, Obama and his minions lied their as*es off about it and got caught in those lies. They brought this on themselves. The media is only doing what the media has always done.

Chronological sequence of events to present...
http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/10/world/benghazi-consulate-attack-fast-facts/
At what point in these events did this become something more than an attack on an embassy?... Time, Date?...

I'll tell you when it became a media circus,... Sept,11, 2012 at about 10:30 p.m. ET,...
When Presidential candidate Mitt Romney stated...
"I'm outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. It's disgraceful that the Obama administration's first response was not to condemn the attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks."  

If it was about the cover-up after the fact... what's up with Mitt on the very eve of the attacks...
He saw the fire before there was any smoke...

Political tempest in a teapot for campaign purposes...
... and the ball rolled from there...

I remember the reporting...
Right-wing spin machine was on it like white on rice from the instant it began...
I don't know where hell you guys were that you all missed it...
This was a media event, from the first second,...not a real issue...

the date was 9/11 for goodness sake, I'm a moron and knew instantly the attack had nothing to do with that stupid internet video..

at the time I wondered why the administration was going so far convincing us it was about the vid.. Then I heard about requests for more security being denied and state dept folks started dancing like roaches on a hot plate..

heads should be rolling, including the ex-president's wife

raydawg wrote on 06/12/14 at 16:49:27:

Never said that, Dawg...
I criticized it...

Serowbot wrote on 06/02/14 at 15:29:03:

That's me 10 days ago, saying it was a bad deal...
I do care about vets,.. even ones that may have strayed or had a breakdown... So I do believe in "No man left behind"...
..but, that seems like a bad trade...
Unless,.. we have a plan beyond the surface facts...
Possibly,.. tracking these fellers, and letting them lead us to new intel...
I don't know... ...

Inaccurate... or more accurate?

Sometimes facts come out in the hurry and, yes, sometimes corrections are made. Sometimes there are retractions. Sometimes the government will ask that an article not be published because it counters their own statements.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/12/associated-press-cia-story-_n_443582...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/12/13/sen-bill-nels...

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-ap-phone-records-seized-yemen-story-cia-al...


--Steve

typical "my team" right or wrong  

Serowbot wrote on 06/12/14 at 17:45:00:


Sorry buddy, I stand corrected on that matter, but your reply is interesting.....

You said, not negotiating with terrorists... Obama got away on a technicality with that one... because "the negotiation was with Qatar govn't, not terrorists".. the result is the same..

Would it be right to say he circumvented the intent of the process?

Why?

Chuck Hagel said they should have enlightened the membership, and that it was Obama's call.

Obama has said he will apologize to no one.....

If you find that this is not a breech of power, then I really have nothing else to say about it to you..... other than its scary.
To buck the system over a matter as small as this (in scope) and then dig in with such bunker mentality, makes me wonder of his mental stability and paranoia tendencies.  

I can agree with what you said, its a mess, and will continue to be so....

What I find disturbing I reckon is this guy promised (as many do) to be open and transparent yet has been anything but, and our "supposedly" advocate, the press, the "fourth" check and balance appear to have abandoned all responsibility in that regard.  

Folk are sick and tied of the games of schematics by the politicians and the press, and I believe change is a coming.....

Sad we have to let thing deteriorate to such a grand scale before we react, but complacency is, well heck, its easy to fall into that grove