No media bias at all.

[DC Tom]

from your link

 

Considering the multiple reports that the Marines actually fired their weapons, the reports that they weren't carrying live ammo are pretty inexplicable.

[B-Man]

Media bias commentary, from Hugh Hewitt

 

 

Most journalists have figured out by now that the public isn't outraged at Mitt Romney, but that there is growing dismay with a president asleep at the switch on the anniversary of 9/11 and who marked the day the news broke of the assassination of four American diplomats with a trip to Vegas for campaigning and fundraising.

 

The president's chest thumping on foreign policy is classic insecurity manifesting itself in an empty boastfulness made not so much offensive as dismaying by the back drop of growing chaos across the Middle East. This incompetent amateur may belive in his heart that he is master of all he surveys, but the overwhelming evidence of the fact that he is in far over his head grows to mountain-sized enormity.

 

The Guns of August seem to be replaying themselves in September and October of 2012 but the president is on autopilot and the Manhattan-Beltway Media Elite have agreed that it is inappropriate to raise a voice against this drift.

 

Only Obama's MSM fan-club doesn't see the connection between the growing chaos and the president's cluelessness, though if pressed as to what they expected when early on their favoritist president ever got the Nobel Prize and traveled to

that would bring the Arab world to a quick and orderly move to democracy and full rights for women and religious minorities with Iranian disarmament thrown in, they might admit that a second term would be useful to the accomplishment of these goals. The horrified masses outside of the Manhattan-Beltway media bubble wonder what in the world the world would look like with four more years of Chance the Gardener as POTUS, but MSM is untroubled.

 

Their job is to oganize the assualt on Romney, as CBS' Jan Crawford (heir to Mary Mapes?) did so wonderfully well on tape before yesterday's statement by Mitt Romney. The Borg of the Manhattan-Beltway media elite had decided on a narrative and organized for its development and transmission. Oops. The curtain was up.

 

Key takeaway: The press didn't care what Romney had to say. He could have said "I am withdrawing from the race." He could have said he'd had a call from Ahmadinejad asking to meet. He could have announced he was flying to Cairo. None of it would not have mattered to the MSMers! They had their questions down. This is the reality of the MSM palace guard revealed and undeniable: Their job is to bleed Romney so their guy can get another four years.

 

 

None of their scheming matters. What matters is the reaction of the voters to this clueless president and this conniving press. Here is the reality fo the election:

8.2% unemployment (actually around 11% if the hopeless are factored in.) Looming tax hikes that will further destroy growth and the rollout of Obamacare that will lead to premium shock and reduced care and downward pressure on growth and unemployment. Iran thrusting for nukes and Israel pointing to the ticking clock. Cairo and other Arab cities burning and mobs massing. China launching new ships and initiatives; Russia hostile and grasping; Europe teetering.

 

This is why Mitt Romney will win: Voters see and know this. Whether pollsters are doing their job or not on "likely voter screens" and "turnout models" doesn't change the facts on the ground. The president has failed, on every front and in spectacular fashion.

True, he may not know it. He may be gliding through the final four months of his presidency absolutely convinced he's king of the world, but he's a failure. The country doesn't re-elect failure, no matter how urgently fellow failed and aging "journalists" or their young acolytes --"What's our question Jan?"-- desperately want him to be thought a success.

 

http://www.hughhewitt.com/blog

 

.

[B-Man]

Our MEDIA, looking to protect freedom of speech.

 

 

 

[Oxrock]

from your link

You make this as though the "UPDATE" was there when I read the article. But thanks for the update just the same.

 

Considering the multiple reports that the Marines actually fired their weapons, the reports that they weren't carrying live ammo are pretty inexplicable.

Actually, at the time I posted that, I had not read a single instance of Marines firing their weapons. Not one instance.

Edited September 15, 2012 by Oxrock

[DC Tom]

Actually, at the time I posted that, I had not read a single instance of Marines firing their weapons. Not one instance.

 

And that time was a full ten hours after I read a report stating such. A full ten hours.

[Oxrock]

And that time was a full ten hours after I read a report stating such. A full ten hours.

In the end, it doesn't matter. The article I linked was wrong according to the Pentagon. So, there's that.

Now, where is that report stating such?

 

Wait, what?

A Pentagon spokesperson Friday would not say definitively that U.S. Marines in Egypt have been authorized to carry live ammunition, raising questions about the administration’s denial of reports indicating that Marines were not carrying live ammo when the U.S. Embassy in Cairo was besieged by rioters.

Reports emanating from the Nightwatch newsletter indicating that Marines in Cairo did not have permission to carry live ammunition sparked a firestorm Thursday, leading to denials from administration officials, including spokesmen at the Pentagon.

However, Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs George Little would not clearly state whether the Marines had live ammunition during a press briefing earlier today.

When contacted by the Free Beacon, Pentagon spokeswoman Monica Matoush said that she was unable to clarify Little’s comments, and directed this reporter to the State Department.

A senior State Department official told the Free Beacon: “The Marines on duty at Embassy Cairo had ammunition in their weapons, as they always do at all our Missions overseas when they are on duty.”

U.S. Marines carry weapons, Little repeatedly stated during his Friday briefing.

Asked by a reporter if the Marines in Cairo were carrying live ammunition, Little responded: “I would say, first, that with or without a weapon, Marines are always armed.”

“In this case, in Cairo, our Marines do in fact have weapons,” he added.

The exchange continued:

Q: Do they have ammunition?

MR. LITTLE: Do they have ammunition?

Q: That—that was what the report was, that she had not—the ambassador had not authorized them to have ammunition in their weapons. Is that false?

MR. LITTLE: To my knowledge, they have weapons and I have heard nothing to suggest that they don’t have ammunition.

Edited September 15, 2012 by Oxrock

[In-A-Gadda-Levitre]

 

You make this as though the "UPDATE" was there when I read the article. But thanks for the update just the same.

nope, just pointing out that your source had been updated and the theory had been debunked.

[In-A-Gadda-Levitre]

 

In the end, it doesn't matter. The article I linked was wrong according to the Pentagon. So, there's that.

Now, where is that report stating such?

 

Wait, what?

if you follow the timeline on this, you'll see a rash of articles by major and minor news agencies early, and of course the blogosphere went totally bonkers, as one might expect. Then, the Pentagon responded affirmatively that this was not the case, and the story died in the news media after the updates (AP, Fox News, etc.). Now the only people that appear to hang on to the original theory are the blogs, who apparently aren't satisfied by the Pentagon's statement. Ok, The Free Beacon isn't buying it, I get that, but unless you provide a reasonably legitimate source that can prove or least shed some light as to why the original statement is still true, just let it go.

Edited September 15, 2012 by In-A-Gadda-Levitre

[TheMadCap]

So despite all these constant stories about how damaging Mitten's comments were, is there really anyone who was going to vote for Romney changing thier minds? Over this supposed gaffe?

 

[Oxrock]

if you follow the timeline on this, you'll see a rash of articles by major and minor news agencies early, and of course the blogosphere went totally bonkers, as one might expect. Then, the Pentagon responded affirmatively that this was not the case, and the story died in the news media after the updates (AP, Fox News, etc.). Now the only people that appear to hang on to the original theory are the blogs, who apparently aren't satisfied by the Pentagon's statement. Ok, The Free Beacon isn't buying it, I get that, but unless you provide a reasonably legitimate source that can prove or least shed some light as to why the original statement is still true, just let it go.

Free Beacon is a legitimate source. See, they quote actual people, not other blogs. Here's the "nothing to suggest they didn't have ammunition".

http://www.defense.g...anscriptID=5111.

 

That's not exactly a debunking now is it. He didn't flat out say "They had ammunition".

 

The other report of "warning shots" that DC Tom linked to said it wasn't clear where the shots came from or who fired them. So there's that to.

 

I'm moving on because it really doesn't matter at this point. If true the left doesn't care one bit and will just use whatever excuse they can to justify why they didn't. If not true, apparently it didn't save them anyway. Sad.

Edited September 15, 2012 by Oxrock

[B-Man]

Romney Was Right About That Cairo Press Release.

 

 

 

Mediaite: Obama’s Horrible, Gaffe-Laden Week Goes Uncovered By Press. “This summer, during a much-panned visit abroad after having offended the British people by questioning London’s preparedness for the Summer Olympics, Mitt Romney was asked by a perturbed member of the political press, ‘What about your gaffes?’ I eagerly await the press directing this loaded question towards the president. At this point, the credibility of the political media just about depends on it.”

 

Credibility? At this point, they’re just campaign operatives with bylines.

[Cinga]

Free Beacon is a legitimate source. See, they quote actual people, not other blogs. Here's the "nothing to suggest they didn't have ammunition".

http://www.defense.g...anscriptID=5111.

 

That's not exactly a debunking now is it. He didn't flat out say "They had ammunition".

 

The other report of "warning shots" that DC Tom linked to said it wasn't clear where the shots came from or who fired them. So there's that to.

 

I'm moving on because it really doesn't matter at this point. If true the left doesn't care one bit and will just use whatever excuse they can to justify why they didn't. If not true, apparently it didn't save them anyway. Sad.

 

Ox, your right, the Marines did not have ammunition. Otherwise, as you know, not a soul would have made it over that wall into the embassy... This story is all over Marine Corps blogs, and while they may be "blogs", I tend to believe my fellow JarHeads over anyone else...

[B-Man]

Mark Steyn;

 

Lying in State

 

 

Rich, re the silence of the State Department, I understand that America has decayed from a land of laws to a land of legalisms but the position that no one at State can say a word about Benghazi because there’s now an FBI investigation, and so it’s a sub judice police matter, and Sgt Friday has flown out with an extra long roll of yellow “DO NOT CROSS” tape and strung it round the smoking ruins of the US consulate and the “safe house” is stark staring nuts.

 

This is a security fiasco and a strategic debacle for the foreign policy of the United States, not a liquor store hold-up. What is wrong even with the bland, compliant, desiccated, over-credentialed, pansified, groupthink poodles of the press corps that they don’t hoot and jeer at Victoria Nuland? I know why she’s doing it; I know why Hillary Clinton is desperately trying to suggest that some movie trailer on YouTube is the reason that a mob in Benghazi knows the location of the US Ambassador’s safe house. But why would anybody else even pretend to take this stuff seriously? Elderly Soviet propagandists must be wondering why they wasted their time jamming radio transmitters and smashing printing presses when they could just have sent everyone to Columbia Journalism School.

 

Forget the free-speech arguments. In this case, as Secretary Clinton and General Dempsey well know, the film has even less to do with anything than did the Danish cartoons or the schoolteacher’s teddy bear or any of the other innumerable grievances of Islam. The 400-strong assault force in Benghazi showed up with RPGs and mortars: That’s not a spontaneous movie protest; that’s an act of war, and better planned and executed than the dying superpower’s response to it. Secretary Clinton and General Dempsey are, to put it mildly, misleading the American people when they suggest otherwise.

 

One can understand why they might do this, given the fiasco in Libya. The men who organized this attack knew the ambassador would be at the consulate in Benghazi rather than at the embassy in Tripoli. How did that happen? They knew when he had been moved from the consulate to a “safe house,” and switched their attentions accordingly. How did that happen? The United States government lost track of its ambassador for ten hours. How did that happen?

 

Perhaps, when they’ve investigated Mitt Romney’s press release for another three or four weeks, the court eunuchs of the American media might like to look into some of these fascinating questions, instead of leaving the only interesting reporting on an American story to the foreign press.

 

For whatever reason, Secretary Clinton chose to double down on misleading the American people. “Libyans carried Chris’s body to the hospital,” said Mrs. Clinton. That’s one way of putting it. The photographs at the Arab TV network al-Mayadeen show Chris Stevens’s body being dragged through the streets, while the locals take souvenir photographs on their cell phones.

 

 

 

Meanwhile, in Pakistan, the local doctor who fingered bin Laden to the Americans sits in jail. In other words, while America’s clod vice president staggers around pimping limply that only Obama had the guts to take the toughest decision anyone’s ever had to take, the poor schlub who actually did have the guts, who actually took the tough decision in a part of the world where taking tough decisions can get you killed, languishes in a cell because Washington would not lift a finger to help him.

.

[Gary M]

http://nation.foxnews.com/mitt-romney/2012/09/22/networks-favor-romney-47-13-1-over-obama-redistribution

[B-Man]

I confess, I laughed and then I sighed:

 

The execution seems far fetched, but not the coverage:...................................

 

 

“Media Having Trouble Finding Right Angle On Obama’s Double-Homicide.”

 

 

.

Edited September 22, 2012 by B-Man

[The Poojer]

That was great but it could have used a Bush reference.

 

I confess, I laughed and then I sighed:

 

The execution seems far fetched, but not the coverage:...................................

 

 

“Media Having Trouble Finding Right Angle On Obama’s Double-Homicide.”

 

 

.

[B-Man]

 

MSNBC Panel Baffled: Why Anyone Would Think ‘Redistribution Of Wealth’ Is Bad?

 

by Noah Rothman

 

On Thursday’s panel discussion on MSNBC’s NOW, reporters and columnists from esteemed publications like the Chicago Sun-Times and the New York Times tackled a recently released video of President Barack Obama in 1998 advocating for programs that would augment the government’s redistributive powers. The panel noted that Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign has pounced on the video, but they were nearly universally perplexed as to why anyone would view Obama’s comments about redistribution in a negative light. After all, they said, government’s most successful programs redistribute wealth in some degree. Some panel guests concluded by urging the president and his supporters to engage in a debate over the beneficence of an activist government. Conservatives who know that the debate over the proper role of government is one they most often win would likely agree.

 

{snip}

 

What faith in the intelligence of the governed this panel demonstrates. The only reason why a voter would perceive the term, let alone the action, of redistribution in a negative light is because they are babes in the woods – utterly baffled by the meaning of words and the historic track record of confiscatory government.

 

Melber went on to cite New York Magazine’s Jonathan Chait who described Obama’s advocacy for market-based delivery systems of progressive government programs as “moderate.” Spare me. This is an example of a tired, contradictory trope that liberals tell themselves when they think no one is looking: American’s like government, just so long as it is hidden in plain sight.

 

But if one fallacy was not enough for the panel, MSNBC contributor Richard Wolffe trots out the straw man to end all straw men. After saying that even a purely flat tax rate was as redistributive as a progressive tax, Wolffe claimed, “If you don’t believe in redistribution, then you don’t believe in any public services at all.”

 

Perhaps the panelists should spend less time in the echo chamber and more time digesting polls. The most recent Gallup survey which showed that a majority of respondents – 54 percent, in fact – said that government is trying to do too much. Just 39 percent said that government should do more to solve the nation’s problems. Another clear majority, 51 percent, said that government has too much power. 8 percent said that they did not have enough power.

 

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/msnbc-panel-baffled-why-anyone-would-think-redistribution-of-wealth-is-bad/

[Smears]

On rush limbaugh today he played a clip of several media members preparing for this conference to interview Romney.

 

Apparently they didn't realize one of their mics was on so there was an actual recording of how there was collusion in the media to try and trip him up with their questioning. I think one if the reporters was a chick from cbs

 

!@#$ing minor league pathetic. And this same press let's our empty suit spend 4 years fundraising and campaigning while dodging as much responsibility as possible. He is never held to account for his actions and record.

Rush Limbaugh??? Of course you would. What an ideal American to get your propaganda spoon fed to you. Pill popping, racist, sexist, selfish prick. All of you keep sitting on his lap.

[B-Man]

EDIT: CBS Doesn't Air Obama Admitting Mistakes in Campaign Ads...

 

 

I am sure it was because of tome constraints...........lol

[Doc]

EDIT: CBS Doesn't Air Obama Admitting Mistakes in Campaign Ads...

 

 

I am sure it was because of tome constraints...........lol

Romney's campaign should be running ads night and day over Obama admitting his ads lie.