@gulfgal98

Especially sheep in a bubble, the latter of which would be likely to rapidly wind up smelling like increasing manure, going by certain restricted and party-line spewing sites, at least one of which many of us might have ditched.

I'd say that it's far better to encounter even propaganda which you may recall having been thoroughly disproved, so that you can provide your evidence and discuss matters from there in a civilized fashion or agree to disagree, than to have civil disagreement and discourse squelched for the sake of censorship. The latter being something which I find both depressing and disgusting, as well as limiting. There are a number of areas in which various theories/claims at which I'd once laughed turned out to actually make sense and be at least potentially factual once I finally looked through them typically out of boredom, for amusement value. There really was dirty work at Benghazi, for instance, even though the right-wing propagandists never went after the real issues...

Certainly, many here will know more about this than I, but just in case:

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/04/real-benghazi-story.html

Pulitzer-Prize Winning Reporter Sy Hersh: Benghazi Is a HUGE Scandal … But Not For the Reason You Think
Posted on April 15, 2014 by WashingtonsBlog
Beyond Partisan Politics: What Benghazi Is Really About

... That’s the part you’ve heard about: failure to protect the personnel at the embassy.

But then Hersh breaks the deeper story wide open:

A highly classified annex to the report, not made public, described a secret agreement reached in early 2012 between the Obama and Erdoğan administrations. It pertained to the rat line. By the terms of the agreement, funding came from Turkey, as well as Saudi Arabia and Qatar; the CIA, with the support of MI6, was responsible for getting arms from Gaddafi’s arsenals into Syria. A number of front companies were set up in Libya, some under the cover of Australian entities. Retired American soldiers, who didn’t always know who was really employing them, were hired to manage procurement and shipping. The operation was run by David Petraeus, the CIA director who would soon resign when it became known he was having an affair with his biographer. (A spokesperson for Petraeus denied the operation ever took place.)

The operation had not been disclosed at the time it was set up to the congressional intelligence committees and the congressional leadership, as required by law since the 1970s. The involvement of MI6 enabled the CIA to evade the law by classifying the mission as a liaison operation. The former intelligence official explained that for years there has been a recognised exception in the law that permits the CIA not to report liaison activity to Congress, which would otherwise be owed a finding. (All proposed CIA covert operations must be described in a written document, known as a ‘finding’, submitted to the senior leadership of Congress for approval.) Distribution of the annex was limited to the staff aides who wrote the report and to the eight ranking members of Congress – the Democratic and Republican leaders of the House and Senate, and the Democratic and Republicans leaders on the House and Senate intelligence committees. This hardly constituted a genuine attempt at oversight: the eight leaders are not known to gather together to raise questions or discuss the secret information they receive.

The annex didn’t tell the whole story of what happened in Benghazi before the attack, nor did it explain why the American consulate was attacked. ‘The consulate’s only mission was to provide cover for the moving of arms,’ the former intelligence official, who has read the annex, said. ‘It had no real political role.’

Hersh isn’t the first to report on this major scandal.

We’ve extensively documented that the bigger story behind the murder of ambassador Chris Stevens at the Benghazi embassy in Libya is that the embassy was the center of U.S. efforts to arm jihadis in Syria who are trying to topple the Syrian government.

We’ve also noted that this is not a partisan issue … both parties greenlighted regime change in Syria years ago, and both parties have tried to cover up what was really going on in Benghazi. ...

... The Wall Street Journal, Telegraph and other sources confirm that the US consulate in Benghazi was mainly being used for a secret CIA operation.

They say that the State Department presence in Benghazi “provided diplomatic cover” for the previously hidden CIA mission. WND alleges that it was not a real consulate. And former CIA officer Philip Giraldi confirms:

Benghazi has been described as a U.S. consulate, but it was not. It was an information office that had no diplomatic status. There was a small staff of actual State Department information officers plus local translators. The much larger CIA base was located in a separate building a mile away. It was protected by a not completely reliable local militia. Base management would have no say in the movement of the ambassador and would not be party to his plans, nor would it clear its own operations with the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli. In Benghazi, the CIA’s operating directive would have been focused on two objectives: monitoring the local al-Qaeda affiliate group, Ansar al-Sharia, and tracking down weapons liberated from Colonel Gaddafi’s arsenal. Staff consisted of CIA paramilitaries who were working in cooperation with the local militia. The ambassador would not be privy to operational details and would only know in general what the agency was up to. When the ambassador’s party was attacked, the paramilitaries at the CIA base came to the rescue before being driven back into their own compound, where two officers were subsequently killed in a mortar attack....

... Retired Lt. General William Boykin said in January that Stevens was in Benghazi as part of an effort to arm the Syrian opposition:

More supposition was that he was now funneling guns to the rebel forces in Syria, using essentially the Turks to facilitate that. Was that occurring, (a), and if so, was it a legal covert action?

Boykin said Stevens was “given a directive to support the Syrian rebels” and the State Department’s Special Mission Compound in Benghazi “would be the hub of that activity.”

Business Insider reports that Stevens may have been linked with Syrian terrorists:

There’s growing evidence that U.S. agents—particularly murdered ambassador Chris Stevens—were at least aware of heavy weapons moving from Libya to jihadist Syrian rebels.

In March 2011 Stevens became the official U.S. liaison to the al-Qaeda-linked Libyan opposition, working directly with Abdelhakim Belhadj of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group—a group that has now disbanded, with some fighters reportedly participating in the attack that took Stevens’ life. ...

... In other words, ambassador Stevens may have been a key player in deploying Libyan terrorists and arms to fight the Syrian government.

Other sources also discuss that the U.S. consulate in Benghazi as mainly being used as a CIA operation to ship fighters and arms to Syria.

Many have speculated that – if normal security measures weren’t taken to protect the Benghazi consulate or to rescue ambassador Stevens – it was because the CIA was trying to keep an extremely low profile to protect its cover of being a normal State Department operation.

That is what I think really happened at Benghazi.
Was CIA Chief David Petraeus’ Firing Due to Benghazi?

CIA boss David Petraeus suddenly resigned, admitting to an affair. But Petraeus was scheduled to testify under oath the next week before power House and Senate committees regarding the Benghazi consulate. Many speculate that it wasn’t an affair – but the desire to avoid testifying on Benghazi – which was the real reason for Petraeus’ sudden resignation. And see this.

This seems to be the only site still showing this, at least under my search terms and on the 1st page... There used to be one complete with the actual recording available. At any rate, I recall wondering if this was the/an actual reason for that resignation, not having bothered to look into 'right-wing nonsense like laughable BENGHAZI!' due to brainwashing I'd failed to even recognize...

http://www.justice-integrity.org/238-disturbing-developments-for-democra...

Disturbing Developments for Democracy Wind Up Year

Andrew Kreig
December 22, 2012

...Scant media follow up occurred following the revelation this month that Fox News attempted in 2011 to recruit Gen. David Petraeus, left, the nation's war commander in Afghanistan, to fight President Obama for the 2012 presidency as the GOP's candidate. Even though Petraeus declined the invitation, the long, friendly discussion constitutes an astounding breach of law requiring loyalty by uniformed officers to the commander-in-chief and also the supposed independence of the media from picking sides in political contests. ...

... To recap: Roger Ailes, right, founder and chairman of Fox News, tried to recruit Petraeus to become the GOP's 2012 nominee in a race against President Obama, as Washington Post editor Bob Woodward reported early this month. Woodward's story was based on a tape recording of a 90-minute discussion between Petraeus and Fox emissary Kathleen McFarland, a Fox analyst and former high-ranking GOP national security aide. The transcript is here.

Carl Bernstein, Woodward's former colleague at the Post in the Watergate investigation, published a column last week, Why the US media ignored Murdoch's brazen bid to hijack the presidency.

Jonathan Cook followed up with an even more provocative column, OpEd News, Why the Washington Post killed the story of Murdoch's bid to buy the US presidency. Cook, based in Israel, wrote,"Murdoch's goal seems to have been nothing less than using his media empire – notably Fox News – to stealthily recruit, bankroll and support the presidential candidacy of General David Petraeus in the 2012 election." Cook argued that the effort represented not only a danger to democracy, but that the scant coverage illustrated media complicity by organizations in addition to Fox News. ...

Seems as though there are a lot of billionaire-type people trying to buy/pick who Americans are permitted to vote for... and that one never can tell when one's being a bubble-head until flooded with (what one thinks are actual, verifiable) facts.

Although I am a moderator here, the following is my personal take on this issue. I am not speaking for the moderation team in this comment because it has not been discussed by the team as a whole.

My personal rule of thumb is that no one source should be completely off limits or discounted simply because it was forbidden elsewhere. However, if and when I use certain sources that can cause some people to have heart burn, I try to find an additional source to back it up. This is simply my way of maintaining my own credibility here at Caucus99.

The MSM media has failed the people of the United States by either not reporting or by covering up some important stories that affect us all. For example, in the case of the Awan brothers spy ring in Congress, there has been zero to very little (and often slanted) coverage in the MSM. However, there has been considerable coverage in on line media with several on line sites covering and reporting about it. Luke Rosiak of the Daily Caller has been doing significant reporting. I am not going to discount his reporting simply because it appears in the Daily Caller, especially when we are seeing other sources providing some or much corroborating information.

IMO, one of the best things about this site is that our members treat each other as adults. If we are adults, we should be able to use our personal critical thinking skills to determine what to believe or not to believe. I also want to add that I am a firm believer in healthy skepticism. Without it, we are simply sheep, and who wants to be a sheep?

@Unabashed Liberal

I totally see your point; such details as corporate ownership/tell-tale stock changes, controlling interests and agendas were definitely best located in business/investment news and too-often not mentioned at all anywhere that I could find outside of them, back in the day. Not that I've been up to any such very basic research for freaking ever... life may mean nothing to various business interests/experts, since money is typically everything in these areas, but some very interesting stuff could be found sometimes even by us poors attempting to assess theories or whatever.

Interruption means 'page cannot be verified or viewed' so I'll bet this double-posts...

regarding sourcing material--the papers that 'cater' to the One Percent, are often the most factually correct. IOW, publishers don't tend to lie to them.

BTW, he was speaking of straight reporting--not the Editorial, or Opinion Pages. That's why he subscribes (or did) to The Financial Times.

Personally, I tend to check out FT, WaPo, and the NYT and a couple other major corporatist newspapers--then, check out what I find.

IOW, 'trust, but verify.'

Mostly, I look for 'quotes'--especially, from lawmakers.

IMHO, it's a mistake to only read progressive media, since they have a bias, too. I'll soon be posting conflicting quotes from a lawmaker, made days apart. They were made to WaPo, and days later, to millennial-targeting Vice News.

If anything, I'm more interested in what a lawmaker is willing to say to a national audience, than what he/she says to his/her supporters. I say that, because, (IMO) it's a given that lawmakers will throw 'red meat' to their Base--often greatly exaggerating their stances on issues. What they're willing to say to a broader audience, therefore, holds considerably more credence with me.

Mollie

---

“I believe in the redemptive powers of a dog’s love. It is in recognition of each dog’s potential to lift the human spirit, and therefore, to change society for the better, that I fight to make sure every street dog has its day.”
--Stasha Wong, Secretary, Save Our Street Dogs (SOSD)

SOSD - A volunteer-run organisation dedicated to the welfare of Singapore’s street dogs. We rescue, rehabilitate, and rehome strays to give them a second chance.

On Twitter - SOSD Singapore@SOSDsg

@Unabashed Liberal the false narratives. They might provide the facts, say on what's currently happening in Syria, but they'll also plant the false narratives in there, saying "civil war", fighting terrorists, etc., to continue the big lies.
If people don't know any better, that's when it's dangerous. Most people don't know any better. And I've seen civil war for Syria used here up until just recently. Even when people think they're well informed, they can still absorb those false narratives.

regarding sourcing material--the papers that 'cater' to the One Percent, are often the most factually correct. IOW, publishers don't tend to lie to them.

BTW, he was speaking of straight reporting--not the Editorial, or Opinion Pages. That's why he subscribes (or did) to The Financial Times.

Personally, I tend to check out FT, WaPo, and the NYT and a couple other major corporatist newspapers--then, check out what I find.

IOW, 'trust, but verify.'

Mostly, I look for 'quotes'--especially, from lawmakers.

IMHO, it's a mistake to only read progressive media, since they have a bias, too. I'll soon be posting conflicting quotes from a lawmaker, made days apart. They were made to WaPo, and days later, to millennial-targeting Vice News.

If anything, I'm more interested in what a lawmaker is willing to say to a national audience, than what he/she says to his/her supporters. I say that, because, (IMO) it's a given that lawmakers will throw 'red meat' to their Base--often greatly exaggerating their stances on issues. What they're willing to say to a broader audience, therefore, holds considerably more credence with me.

Mollie

---

“I believe in the redemptive powers of a dog’s love. It is in recognition of each dog’s potential to lift the human spirit, and therefore, to change society for the better, that I fight to make sure every street dog has its day.”
--Stasha Wong, Secretary, Save Our Street Dogs (SOSD)

SOSD - A volunteer-run organisation dedicated to the welfare of Singapore’s street dogs. We rescue, rehabilitate, and rehome strays to give them a second chance.

On Twitter - SOSD Singapore@SOSDsg