This is So Cool, Erin Burnett and CNN Broadcast Benghazi Propaganda For Conservative Republicans

This is So Cool, Erin Burnett and CNN Broadcast Benghazi Propaganda For Conservative Republicans

CNN's special The Truth About Benghazi pushed long-debunked myths about the September 2012 attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya, with host Erin Burnett and CNN correspondent John King asking questions that were answered months ago -- often by CNN itself -- and leaving important context out of many claims.

CNN: Was The Removal Of Terrorist Group Names From Benghazi Talking Points 'Nefarious'?

CNN: Couldn't U.S. Military Have Responded To Attacks More Quickly?

CNN: Why Didn't U.S. Heed Warnings Of Benghazi Attacks?
CNN: Was The Removal Of Terrorist Group Names From Benghazi Talking Points 'Nefarious'?

CNN Recklessly Speculated About Why Terrorist Groups Were Removed From Benghazi Talking Points. During The Truth About Benghazi special, CNN chief national correspondent John King questioned why the names of specific terrorist organizations were removed from the unclassified talking points on the Benghazi attacks that were provided to then-U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice. King asked whether the editing was done "to protect the investigation" or whether "it was done just politically to protect the department? Or more nefariously" to protect the State Department or President Obama. During a prepared video package, CNN played haunting music behind their description of the talking points edits before King noted that the first draft "referenced Islamic extremists with ties to Al Qaeda," but that former State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland "objected to naming terror groups" in an email discussion about the talking points without providing the reasoning behind her objection. [CNN, The Truth About Benghazi, 8/6/13]
Answer: Talking Points Altered For Security Purposes, As CNN Itself Has Reported

Former CIA Director David Petraeus: Names Of Terrorist Groups Were Removed To Avoid Tipping Them Off. In November, former CIA Director David Petraeus explained to lawmakers in congressional testimony that the names of terrorist organizations suspected of participating in the attacks "were removed from the public explanation of the attack immediately after the assault to avoiding alerting the militants that American intelligence and law enforcement agencies were tracking them." [The New York Times, 11/16/12]

Former State Department Spokeswoman Victoria Nuland Was Concerned Naming Terrorist Groups Could "Prejudice The Investigation." In emails exchanged between the CIA, State Department, and other administration officials concerning the drafting of the talking points on Benghazi -- emails made public by CNN in May -- Nuland expressed concern that publicly naming specific terrorist organizations could "prejudice the investigation" into who was behind the attacks. [Media Matters, 5/15/13]

CIA's General Counsel: FBI Instructions Said Not To Reveal Names Of Terror Groups Due To Criminal Investigation. In another email released by CNN in May, the general counsel of the CIA expressed concerns that naming terrorist organizations in the talking points could "conflict with express instructions from NSS/DOJ/FBI that, in light of the criminal investigation, we are not to generate statements with assessments as to who did this." [Media Matters, 5/15/13]
CNN: Couldn't U.S. Military Have Responded To Attacks More Quickly?

CNN Special Pushed Republican Claim That Military Could Have Responded To Attacks Faster, Ignores Initial Assistance Sent To Benghazi. During CNN's special, John King highlighted a Republican congressman's claims, contrary to testimony from military officials, that military responses could have responded to the first Benghazi attack in time to assist with the second attack hours later at a nearby compound:

    REP. ADAM SMITH (D-WA): The bottom line is there was not a force available that could get there in time. And that has been clearly and unequivocally established and answered over and over again.

    KING: Republican Jason Chaffetz begs to differ.

    CHAFFETZ: They're in Northern Libya, right there on the coast. That we couldn't get U.S. military there for 24 hours, that's embarrassing if it's true. But I really question whether or not that's the actual truth.

    KING (on camera): So essentially you're saying General Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the highest-ranking uniformed officer in the United States of America, isn't telling the truth?

    CHAFFETZ: I think there are other assets and other things that could have been put into motion. That cavalry never comes over the hill to help. That's just stunning to me.

Later, Erin Burnett expressed shock that the military could not respond faster:

    BURNETT: So John, the military says, right, they couldn't have gotten to Benghazi in time, but the United States has the greatest military in the world. So, that seems shocking.

    KING: It does seem shocking -- 24 hours for the first boots on the ground, for the fire department to first make it to Libya, and then only to Tripoli? I think a lot of Americans are stunned by that. [CNN, The Truth About Benghazi, 8/6/13]

Answer: Notion That U.S. Forces Could Have Assisted Sooner Shows "Cartoonish Impression" Of Military

Former Secretary Of Defense Robert Gates: Notion That Military Forces Could Have Assisted Sooner Shows A "Cartoonish Impression" Of U.S. Military. In an interview on CBS' Face the Nation in May, former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates explained that claims that the military response to the Benghazi attacks could have arrived sooner than it did "would have been very difficult if not impossible" and shows a "cartoonish impression of military capabilities and military forces." [Media Matters, 5/12/13]

Decision To Not Send Second Force From Tripoli Was Made By The Head Of The Military's Africa Command, Who Was Concerned About Security In Tripoli. The commander of U.S. Africa Command during the attacks was concerned about threats to the Tripoli embassy complex, and a Pentagon spokesperson confirmed that the assessment of Special Operations Command Africa leadership at the time was that "it was more important for those guys to be in Tripoli" for embassy security. [Media Matters, 5/9/13]

Deputy Chief Of Mission In Libya: Additional Reinforcements Would Not Have Been Able To Get To Benghazi Before The Second Attack Was Concluded. In an interview with congressional investigators, Gregory Hicks, deputy chief of mission in Libya at the time of the attacks, stated that while a team of special forces troops in Tripoli had been told to protect the embassy in Tripoli instead of traveling to Benghazi, the flight they would have taken to Benghazi was scheduled to take off after 6 a.m. local time -- approximately 45 minutes after the attack at the CIA annex that killed two people. Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), a member of the House Oversight Committee who has actively pursued investigations into the Benghazi attacks, also told The Washington Post that the special forces team that Hicks was referring to "would have arrived after the attack." [Media Matters, 5/7/13; The Washington Post, 5/6/13]
CNN: Why Didn't U.S. Heed Warnings Of Benghazi Attacks?

John King: U.S. Had "Warning After Warning That Benghazi Was A Disaster Waiting To Happen." King suggested that the U.S. had plenty of warning that the Benghazi attacks would occur, yet was caught unprepared:

    KING: Michael Hayden is the former CIA director.

    HAYDEN: Act one is, what were the intelligence estimates? What kind of warnings were given? What was the plan? Why do we have so few options in act two?

    KING: Act one is numbing, warning after warning that Benghazi was a disaster waiting to happen.

    [...]

    KING: The evidence was overwhelming: attacks that convinced the British, the Red Cross and the United Nations to leave Benghazi; two prior attacks on the U.S. mission; an IED thrown over the fence by former security guards in April and another IED in June that blew a huge hole in a compound gate; and detailed warnings, CNN is told, in 4,000 classified cables, including updates on new Al Qaeda training camps near Benghazi.

    CHAFFETZ: How come that didn't rise to the level where somebody said, "You know, we just can't operate in this environment"? It was a death trap. [CNN, The Truth About Benghazi, 8/6/13]

Answer: Experts Say There Is No Known Intelligence Warning Of The Attacks

GOP Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers: No Evidence U.S. Had Information To Prevent Attacks. During an interview on Fox News days after the Benghazi attacks, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers was asked whether the U.S. had knowledge that could have prevented the attacks. Rogers responded: "As chairman of the Intelligence Committee, I have seen nothing yet that indicates that they had information that could have prevented the event." [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 9/14/12]

NY Times: No Evidence Of "A Warning That The Diplomatic Compound Would Be Targeted And That Was Overlooked By Administration Officials." The New York Times reported in October that there was no evidence that the government knew of an attack in Benghazi and ignored it:

    Interviews with American officials and an examination of State Department documents do not reveal the kind of smoking gun Republicans have suggested would emerge in the attack's aftermath such as a warning that the diplomatic compound would be targeted and that was overlooked by administration officials.

    [...]

    State Department officials have asserted that there was no specific intelligence that warned of a large-scale attack on the diplomatic compound in Benghazi, which they asserted was unprecedented. The department said it was careful to weigh security with diplomats' need to meet with Libyan officials and citizens.

    "The lethality of an armed, massed attack by dozens of individuals is something greater than we've ever seen in Libya over the last period that we've been there," Patrick F. Kennedy, the State Department's under secretary for management, told reporters at a news conference on Oct. 10. [The New York Times, 10/29/12]

State Department Accountability Review Board: There Was "No Immediate, Specific Tactical Warning" Of Benghazi Attacks. The State Department's Accountability Review Board's unclassified findings about the Benghazi attacks found that there was no specific warning of the Benghazi attacks:

    The Board found that intelligence provided no immediate, specific tactical warning of the September 11 attacks. Known gaps existed in the intelligence community's understanding of extremist militias in Libya and the potential threat they posed to U.S. interests, although some threats were known to exist. [State.gov, accessed 8/7/13]

Part of the conservative conspiracy onslaught is simply blind hatred of President Obama. The other part is about the childish need to even the score. First let's remember that as CNN has correctly pointed out, the diplomatic mission in Benghazi was more of a CIA operation than what would be considered a normal embassy operation - there were over twenty armed and well trained CIA personnel at the compound. Anyway, as patriotic Americans well know, the conservative Bush administration was warned about the possibility of terror attacks in a Presidential Daily Brief and Bush/Cheney ignored those warning. Ooops, conservative said than and now they know what is best for our national security - turns out that just is not true. Conservatives lied and bullied the USA into a three trillion dollar war in Iraq - lying about connections to terrorism, 9-11 and al Qaeda. Conservative national security policies at this point have actually gotten more Americans killed than they have saved. So telling a pack of lies wrapped in conservative tin foil is hardly new.

Anti-American Legal Analyst Peter Johnson, Jr. Joins Fox News In Spreading Health Care Lies

Anti-American Legal Analyst Peter Johnson, Jr. Joins Fox News In Spreading Health Care Lies

During an appearance on Fox and Friends Friday morning, Fox News contributor and legal analyst Peter Johnson, Jr. claimed that Medicare beneficiaries who are losing access to critical medical services as a result of sequestration “ain’t seen nothing yet,” as Obamacare will kill off far more Americans in the next ten years.

During a segment discussing how the budget sequester’s two percent cut to Medicare is forcing cancer clinics to deny chemotherapy to thousands of beneficiaries, Johnson told host Steve Doocy that elderly Americans should expect a lot more bad news in the coming decade as a direct consequence of the health care law:

    DOOCY: This story is going to disturb you. Cancer clinics across this country are turning away thousands of Medicare patients in need of chemotherapy. You can blame the sequester. Is there more to come? Peter Johnson, Jr. has a prescription for truth. Peter, what is this about?

    JOHNSON: This is about people dying as a result of Obamacare and as a result of the sequester. What the oncology association is saying is that thousands of chemotherapy patients who should have received their treatments, their benefits under Medicare, will not based on a 2 percent reduction under the sequester. What they fail to understand — and maybe they do and they don’t want to discuss it at this point — is that over the next ten years, 2013 to 2023, under Obamacare, there will be a $716 billion reduction [to Medicare] in Obamacare. We’re talking about a $3 billion reduction in the sequester now and the $3 billion reduction in Obamacare –

    DOOCY: This is a preview of coming awful things.

    JOHNSON: You haven’t seen anything yet. You ain’t seen nothing yet.

Johnson’s conflation of the sequester’s ham-fisted spending cuts with Obamacare’s Medicare savings demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of the sequester, Obamacare, and how federal budgeting works. Sequestration is causing cancer clinics to turn people away because they can’t afford to keep providing expensive chemotherapy drugs to patients in the face of a two percent cut to Medicare Part B that has to come entirely out of clinics’ overhead funding — making the sequester cut more akin to a double-digit pay cut. Obamacare’s $716 billion in Medicare savings come from reducing historically excessive payments to providers that service private Medicare Advantage plans, meaning that it doesn’t affect benefits. Conservatives have consistently fear-mongered over those savings despite including them in their budgets.

Later on in the program, Johnson also revived the widely debunked claim that Obamacare has “death panels” — a claim that is so patently false that Politifact named it 2009's “Lie of the Year.”

Johnson is a wild eyed zealot for a proto-facist agenda who is willing to tell the most blatant lies to advance his anti-American agenda. he is hoping no one will look up the simple fact that conservatives voted for the sequester and held the budget and Medicare hostage because they claimed the sequester cuts are nothing. The review broads that review medical care costs are what pathological ideologue such as Johnson and Fox are calling death panels - only once again they are hoping fair minded Americans do not look up the facts - conservatives voted for such a panel. Americans should also be asking themselves why why a foaming at the mouth America hater like Steve Doocy makes millions of dollars for doing nothing but misleading the nation on crucal public policy issues. It sure looks like hating freedom and democracy pays well.

Proto-fascist John Hinderaker of PowerLine Should Stop Foisting Economic Lies On a Country He Claims To Love

Proto-fascist John Hinderaker of PowerLine Should Stop Foisting Economic Lies On a Country he Claims To Love

Via Mark Thoma, Hale Stewart is bemused by John Hinderaker of PowerLine. As Stewart notes, Hinderaker begins by asserting that everyone knows that an economic crisis is coming — which apparently means everyone he talks to — then rolls out just about every one of the myths that have been proved wrong again and again by events, from the looming debt crisis to the imminent takeoff of inflation.

What Stewart may not know is that this reign of error goes way back — at least to Hinderaker’s ridiculing of yours truly, back in 2005, for suggesting that we had a huge housing bubble that posed an economic threat. He knew that this was nonsense, because the authors of Dow 36,000 said so. It’s actually kind of a nice symmetry: the man who sneered at warnings about a real crisis is now utterly convinced by claims about a fake crisis.

All of which raises an interesting question: why don’t people like Hinderaker who have been wrong about everything for years and years — demonstrably wrong, in ways that would have lost anyone who believed them a lot of money — ever reconsider? Shouldn’t the thought at least enter their minds that maybe economic analysis is not their strong point? Shouldn’t they at least entertain the notion that they are talking to the wrong “experts”?

So why doesn’t this happen? Part of it, surely, is the Dunning-Kruger effect: the truly incompetent are too incompetent to realize that they’re incompetent. Part of it, also, is the Madoff “affinity fraud” effect: people trust someone they perceive as part of their tribe — in this case the tribe of liberal-haters — and are blind to evidence that they are being taken for a ride.

The surprise, I’d say, is just how strong the Dunning-Kruger-Madoff effect has proved in the face of economic crisis. Year after year in which the predictions of their crowd have gone totally astray haven’t shaken their faith at all. They still believe that reading the WSJ editorial page and watching Fox are the way to know what’s going to happen to the economy, and nothing will change their minds.

For those who are  unfamiliar with it, the Dunning-Kruger-Madoff effect is named after a psychological-neuroscience study that looked at the conundrum of how the incompetent fail to see how incompetent they are, precisely because of their incompetence. If you have have family or friends who were killed or maimed in Iraq, Assrocket ( his well deserved internet nickname) is one of the people responsible. he was one of the circle jerk of conservative pundits who tried to sell the nation on that mulch-trillion dollar debacle. He either has the brains of a tree stump or is malevolent to the core. That he thinks of himself as a patriot would be laughable if he were not so pathetic. This is what he wrote about one of, if not the worse president in U.S. history,

"It must be very strange to be President Bush. A man of extraordinary vision and brilliance approaching to genius, he can't get anyone to notice. He is like a great painter or musician who is ahead of his time, and who unveils one masterpiece after another . . ."

Assrocket and other conservative "intellectuals" are the kind of cancerous growth in America that have been and obviously still are, giving patriotism a bad name. 

Why food-stamp bans are perpetuating risky behaviors among America’s most vulnerable

Why food-stamp bans are perpetuating risky behaviors among America’s most vulnerable

Carla walked into my office with despair in her eyes. I was surprised. Carla has been doing well in her four months out of prison; she got off drugs, regained custody of her kids, and even enrolled in a local community college.

Without much prodding she admitted to me that she had retuned to prostitution: “I am putting myself at risk for HIV to get my kids a f---ing happy meal.”

Despite looking high and low for a job, Carla explained, she was still unemployed. Most entry-level jobs felt out of reach with her drug record, but what’s worse, even the state wasn’t willing to throw her a temporary life preserver.

You see, Carla is from one of the 32 states in the country that ban anyone convicted of a drug felony from collecting food stamps. With the release of the Global Burden of Disease Study last week, it bears looking at how we are perpetuating burdens among the most vulnerable Americans with our outdated laws.

If she’d committed rape or murder, Carla could have gotten assistance to feed herself and her children, but because the crime she committed was a drug felony, Carla joined the hundreds of thousands of drug felons who are not eligible. ......Women with children are especially affected. It’s estimated that 70,000 women and their children are banned from obtaining food stamps. This means mothers who are simply trying to feed themselves and their children, and who are trying to get back on their feet after serving their time, are banned from receiving the money to pay for the basics necessary to survive.  Meanwhile, 46 million others, including college graduates and PhDs with far more resources, can receive food aid.

 This is a cultural legacy of America's Puritanical and hypocritical history. White men can get away with stealing millions, beating their wives and still have a relatively comfortable life.

Few of our fellow Americans are scholars, but basic reading comprehension is not too much to ask, Radical Anti-America "news casters" at Fox New - Self-Congratulation Over Benghazi Report Undermined By Report Itself. Conservatives are so desperate and deeply immoral they have to make up scandals when there are none.
The Craziest UnAmerican Republican Legislative Proposals Of 2012. I don't know why Republicans hate America and freedom. They're certainly free to leave if they hate living in a democratic republic so much.

Anti-American Zealot Sean Hannity owes America an Apology For Lying About Women Who Face Insurance Discrimination In The Absence Of Health Care Reform

                                                                                                               
                 Anti-American Zealot Sean Hannity owes America an Apology For Lying About Women Who Face Insurance Discrimination In The Absence Of Health Care Reform

This week, Fox News host Sean Hannity scoffed at the idea that women face discriminatory practices from the health insurance industry, arguing that it is "disinformation" to claim that repeal of the health care reform law, which bans such practices, will again subject women to unfair and discriminatory treatment by insurers. In fact, the law bans insurance companies from its current practice of charging women higher premiums for the same coverage as men, and forbids insurers from listing pregnancy as a pre-existing condition, which was often used by some providers as an excuse to deny coverage.

DNC's Wasserman Schultz: Affordable Care Act Bans Discriminatory Health Insurance Practices Against Women

Rep. Wasserman Schultz: Mitt Romney Favors Going Back To "A Time When Insurance Companies Could Drop Us Or Deny Us Coverage Simply Because Of Our Gender." On MSNBC, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz stated:

    WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: It's clear that Mitt Romney is dramatically out of touch with women on the issues and the priorities that matter to us. You know, wanting to take us back to a time when insurance companies could drop us or deny us coverage simply because of our gender being considered a pre-existing condition, charging us up to 50 percent more simply because we're women, focusing on not making sure that we can have access to affordable birth control and taking us back to a time when we had to worry about that.

    Those are things -- I have never been more concerned, Martin, in my life. In my generation of women has never been more concerned where my rights that I have accepted and taken for granted for far too long are in jeopardy if Mitt Romney becomes president of the United States -- as a woman.. [MNSBC, Martin Bashir, 4/23/12]

Fox Accuses Wasserman Schultz Of "Disinformation," "Demagoguery"

Hannity: Rep. Wasserman Schultz Spreading "Disinformation" On Health Care. After playing a clip of Rep. Wasserman Schultz's comments, Hannity said that "all this disinformation [is] an attempt to sway the opinions of the American people. But guess what, congresswoman? They're smart enough to figure this out." [Fox News, Hannity, 4/25/12]

Malkin Accused Wasserman Schultz Of "Demagoguery" And Of Being A Part Of "The Unreality-Based Community." Reacting to Wasserman Schultz's statement on health care, Fox News contributor Michelle Malkin said: "I have to give Debbie Wasserman Schultz credit, she's the Energizer Bunny of Democratic demagoguery, and I think a card-carrying member of the unreality-based community." [Fox News, Hannity, 4/25/12]
In Fact, Women Routinely Face "Unfair And Discriminatory Practices" In Health Insurance Market

Congressional Investigation Found Major Health Insurance Companies Routinely Denied Coverage To Expectant Mothers. From an October 2010 House Energy and Commerce Committee memo on maternity coverage in the individual health insurance market:

    Women who are pregnant, expectant fathers, and families attempting to adopt children are generally unable to obtain health insurance in the individual market. The four largest for-profit health insurance companies, Aetna, Humana, UnitedHealth Group, and WellPoint, have each listed pregnancy as a medical condition that would result in an automatic denial of individual health insurance coverage. Health insurance companies also sometimes exclude from coverage expectant fathers, candidates for surrogacy whether they are the surrogate or recipient, and those in the process of adoption.

    [...]

    Women who are pregnant cannot obtain individual health insurance from the four largest for-profit health insurance companies, Aetna, Humana, UnitedHealth Group, and WellPoint. All four insurance companies refuse to provide coverage to applicants who have "pre-existing conditions." Each of the health insurance companies considers pregnancy to be a pre-existing condition that results in an automatic denial of health insurance coverage. [House Energy and Commerce Committee, 10/12/10, emphasis in original]

PolitiFact: Pregnancy Was Considered A "Pre-Existing Condition" In Individual Insurance Market In 39 States. In an August 18, 2009, article titled, "Pregnancy a 'pre-existing condition'? Yes, for some," PolitiFact wrote:

    In 39 states, listed here, insurers can turn down anyone for virtually any reason. It can be because you have a pre-existing condition, like cancer or diabetes. And pregnancy almost always counts too, according to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, which represents the state government officials who regulate insurance sold within their borders. So if you're pregnant and living in one of these 39 states, you're very likely out of luck in securing individual health coverage. You'll have to pay for your care out of your own pocket or seek out charitable assistance.

    And the coverage isn't much better in the remaining 11 states. These states have "guaranteed issue" laws that say insurers cannot turn applicants down based on their health or risk status. But there's a caveat: Even if an insurer must offer you a plan, it can place exclusions on what the plan covers. Typically, the NAIC says, these exclusions last from six to 12 months, which rules out most or all maternity coverage. (After the exclusion expires, the insurer does have to cover those conditions, meaning that a subsequent pregnancy could be covered.)

    [...]

    Health care reform legislation under consideration in Congress would, if enacted, improve the situation for pregnant women seeking health insurance by prohibiting restrictions based on pre-existing conditions. But for now ... pregnancy is considered a pre-existing condition and prevents many women from getting coverage if they seek insurance on the individual market. [PolitiFact, 8/19/09]

National Women's Law Center: Women Still Face "Unfair And Discriminatory Practices" In Individual Health Insurance Market. In its March 2012 report "Turning to Fairness: Insurance discrimination against women today and the Affordable Care Act," the National Women's Law Center found that women "continue to face unfair and discriminatory practices when obtaining health insurance in the individual market -- as well as in the group health insurance market. Women are charged more for health coverage simply because they are women, and individual market health plans often exclude coverage for services that only women need, like maternity care. Furthermore, insurance companies -- despite being aware of these discriminatory practices -- have not voluntarily taken steps to eliminate the inequities." The report showed:

    Gender rating, the practice of charging women different premiums than men, results in significantly higher rates charged to women throughout the country. In states that have not banned the practice, the vast majority, 92%, of best-selling plans gender rate, for example, charging 40-year-old women more than 40-year-old men for coverage. Only 3% of these plans cover maternity services.

 Hannity, Malkin and millions of other conservatives are typical cowardly conservatives. If they cannot win the argument based on reality, they make up a fairy tale. They possess all the rhetorical and ideological hallmarks of every anti-freedom authoritarian movement in modern history. They are the shrill voice of tyranny. You can wrap conservatism in all the red, white and blue they like it is still fundamentally an anti-American movement trying to pass itself off as patriotic. What a sad joke.

Romney bashes Obama for "making us like Europe." But he's the one pushing failed European austerity measures