Infidels

[heironymouspasparagus]

Fox was just a little "testy" that day because their oxycontin shipment hadn't arrived yet.

[Townsend]

Two Dozen CIA Officials Spent a Day Editing the Benghazi Talking Points

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/12/04/benghazi_talking_points_cia_not_white_house_watered_down_public_account.html

The Wall Street Journal's Siobhan Gorman and Adam Entous are the latest reporters to do some digging into the now infamous talking points that Susan Rice delivered on the Sunday talk shows in the wake of the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi.

The specific takeaway is that their sources have confirmed what acting CIA Director Michael Morell had also reportedly told senators late last month: That it was the the CIA and not the White House that scrubbed any mention of al-Qaida from the Benghazi talking points.

But perhaps more interesting is the broader picture that the report provides of the extensive editing process that went on at the agency, one that doesn't make the nation's spy agency look exactly nimble:

The 94-word intelligence summary emerged from a daylong email debate between more than two dozen intelligence officials, in which they contested and whittled the available evidence into a bland summary with no reference to al Qaeda, an assessment the administration now acknowledges was wide of the mark. ...

A detailed examination of how U.S. assessments were turned into the talking points reveals a highly cautious, bureaucratic process that had the effect of watering down the U.S.'s own intelligence. The same process was slow to change conclusions when evidence shifted, in particular about links to al Qaeda and whether the attack grew out of a protest.

[Townsend]

Ed Henry: Some Fox News commentators overdid it on Benghazi

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/12/ed-henry-some-at-fox-news-overdid-it-on-benghazi-151251.html

Fox News White House correspondent Ed Henry says that some Fox News shows over-covered the fallout from the Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi, a candid assessment from one of the network's own.

"I wouldn't lie to you. I see that we're covering Benghazi a lot, and I think that should be something that we're asking about," Henry tells the AP's David Bauder.

But Henry adds that while the network had the "proper emphasis," and while other networks under-covered the story, "some of our shows, some of our commentators, have covered it more than it needed to be covered."

In the days leading up the 2012 election and even after, Fox News provided round-the-clock coverage of the administration's response to the Benghazi attack, even as other networks returned to other issues, especially the economy.

[Red Arrow]

Ed Henry: Some Fox News commentators overdid it on Benghazi

It makes up for the under-coverage of the other networks.  It balanced out in the end.

[Townsend]

It makes up for the under-coverage of the other networks.  It balanced out in the end.

The sane balance out the insane in the end.

[Red Arrow]

The sane balance out the insane in the end.

You and I probably disagree on which set is sane. 

[Townsend]

You and I probably disagree on which set is sane. 

I'm sure, though you're wrong with your opinion, you're correct in this statement.

[heironymouspasparagus]

It makes up for the under-coverage of the other networks.  It balanced out in the end.

If that were true - and it SOOO obviously is NOT - then Fox would spend the next 8,000 months exclusively covering and harping on and on and on about the 4,000 + kids that were wantonly killed in Iraq due to "someone's" arrogance.  What do you think the odds are on that??

[Red Arrow]

I'm sure, though you're wrong with your opinion, you're correct in this statement.

I obviously feel the same way about your opinion.

[Townsend]

I obviously feel the same way about your opinion.

It's like you're in an infinite circle of wrongness.

[Red Arrow]

It's like you're in an infinite circle of wrongness.

You appear to be in the same circle.

Why don't you go back to complaining about sidewalks?  At least there you have something to stand on. 

[Townsend]

You appear to be in the same circle.

Why don't you go back to complaining about sidewalks?  At least there you have something to stand on. 

You gave.  I win.

[Red Arrow]

You gave.  I win.

You win!....  An all expense paid trip to Syria courtesy of Uncle Sam.  See your Army recruiter for your free tickets.  (I would have sent you to one of those "stan" places but I didn't feel like looking up the spelling.)

You can have it.

(As far as sidewalks, I have repeatedly said they have their appropriate places, just not everywhere and I do not give on that.  I assume you caught the double meaning of "stand on".)

[Townsend]

(As far as sidewalks, I have repeatedly said they have their appropriate places, just not everywhere and I do not give on that.  I assume you caught the double meaning of "stand on".)

The places you said they don't need to exist at 111th and Memorial have the ramps from the street, just no sidewalks.

[Red Arrow]

The places you said they don't need to exist at 111th and Memorial have the ramps from the street, just no sidewalks.

And I still say that.  Places downtown, places with multiple houses per acre, places with lots of little kid need sidewalks.  My neighborhood does not need sidewalks.  The stores on the SW corner of 111th & Memorial are connected by the access drive behind the stores.  I don't see drivers zipping through there.   I think that the entrances to the area off Memorial would be a tragedy waiting to happen (either car/pedestrian or car/car avoiding a pedestrian) if there were sidewalks next to Memorial going across the entrances right at Memorial.  It's bad enough going north from 111th with people turning into Starbucks in the morning and that's before drivers even get any speed up after the traffic light.  111th and Memorial is NOT downtown and I don't want it to be.