Friday, January 10, 2014

Just For The Sake Of Being "Fair And Balanced"

We report, you interpret


  1. Since when are you fair and balanced your the most unbalanced person out there so what liberal garbage site did you dig this up from Ha. Im going to Throw up

    1. Rule number 1 of Fox News fans: If you can't dispute the facts, attack the messenger.

  2. Obama's problem is not that the Attack at Benghazi took place. His problem is how he, and his administration reacted to it. So, again, the liberal mind set is to compare apples to oranges.

  3. Here’s what you’ll go through, although I know you’ll never master number 5.
    1. Denial
    2. Anger
    3. Bargaining
    4. Depression
    5. Acceptance.

  4. Seriously Ken? So if the problem is systemic it's OK for Obama to cover this shit up just because Bush did it first? This is the most ridiculous argument you have EVER presented and holds NO water. Wrong is wrong, Repuglican or Demorat. This is a new low standard of evaluation Ken, sorry. If your president makes a bigger mistake than my president it's OK. BS..................

    1. Bob, there was no cover up. No proof has been forthcoming to show that there was. The recent NYT report blew up all the right-wing nonsense. If you can't accept it that's not my problem.
      My point in putting this up was to illustrate the hypocrisy of the right. Democrats didn't launch into the kind of idiocy over those embassy attacks that's been engaged in by Fox News and Daryl Issa for the last year and a half.

  5. U.S. Consulate Yemen, 2008: No Americans killed or injured by militants--NY Times (

    U.S. Consulate Turkey, 2008: No Americans killed or injured by "terrorist attack"--Huffington Post (

    U.S. Consulate Yemen, March 2008: No Americans killed or injured by terrorists.

    I could go on, but when you're citing sources such as the Daily Kos and don't check Snopes, even, for accuracy, you're misleading those who read this nonsense put out by others, and perpetuating a distortion of facts.

    Yes, it's sad that non-Americans died. Yes, I could go case by case and talk about each one and talk about how it's not Benghazi. These embassies, contrary to what is being presented, were fortified, whereas Benghazi was not only not fortified, warnings were ignored.

    Why is there no outrage? Because in the cases you cite there are no obvious attempts to hide facts, including the fact that those killed were, for the most part, the deaths of homicide bombers, and military staff from the host country at the entrance.

    Fortification versus no security.

    That's why the outrage. I'm sure that we're all happy, though, that if we were hurt by an attack at Embassy, if we like our doctor, we could keep that doctor, who could treat us.

    Oh, I forgot that BS by our awful president of community organizers.

    Are Obama loyalists EVER, EVER going to stop blaming Bush, or is that his legacy, since he has nothing good to his name?

    1. First, your attitude is clearly reflected by the comment “Yes, it's sad that non-Americans died.” Clearly it’s your attitude that lives lost in attacks on American embassies don’t matter as much if they’re not American, whether or not they are employees or guest of the embassy. I find that attitude repugnant.

      Second, you say, “These embassies, contrary to what is being presented, were fortified, whereas Benghazi was not only not fortified, warnings were ignored.” Benghazi was not an embassy, it was a consulate. Only embassies are guarded by marines. Also, warnings were not ignored on top of which the ambassador chose of his own volition to travel to Benghazi despite those warnings.

      Then you launch into more standard Obama bashing.

      As regards your final remark, “Are Obama loyalists EVER, EVER going to stop blaming Bush”? I’ll stop blaming Bush when conservative stop blaming FDR.

      So take your phony claims that there is no moral equivalency, or that attempts were made to hide the facts when your most rabid partisans have not been able to find any evidence of such efforts, and go peddle them somewhere that people think only American lives are of value.

  6. Still not printing the rebuttal? I guess that is how you win with your site. So much for fair and balanced. You're like MSNBC, CNN, and all the other liberal media with hiding your criticisms.

    1. I published the "rebuttal" that addressed factual issues. Everything else I have received has been nothing more than personal insults. I've relegated those to the appropriate domain.


All comments subject to moderation. All commenters must use their own name or a screen name. No comments labelled as "Anonymous" will be published. To use your name or a screen name select "Name/URL" from the drop down menu. Insert you name in the "Name" space and leave the "URL" space blank.