RSN June 14 Fundraising
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Rich writes: "Lara Logan's story was not a mere journalistic mistake, but a hoax comparable to such legendary frauds as Life magazine's purchase of the billionaire Howard Hughes's nonexistent 'autobiography' in the seventies and Rupert Murdoch's similarly extravagant embrace of the bogus Hitler 'diaries' in the eighties."

New York Magazine columnist Frank Rich. (photo: NY Magazine)
New York Magazine columnist Frank Rich. (photo: NY Magazine)


CBS's Benghazi Report Was a Hoax, Not a Mistake

By Frank Rich, New York Magazine

14 November 13

 

n Sunday, CBS News correspondent Lara Logan issued a short and, many commentators felt, insufficient apology for her now-discredited 60 Minutes report on the Benghazi consulate attack. A year ago, Logan had publicly mocked the notion that the Benghazi attack was a protest gone awry and advocated for a stronger U.S. military response. Should CBS have given her this story? How can Logan or her network satisfactorily explain the botched report? And do you see a double standard at work between Logan's fate (issuing a halfhearted apology, so far) and Dan Rather's much harsher penalty for his questionable 60 Minutes report in 2004?

Lara Logan's story was not a mere journalistic mistake, but a hoax comparable to such legendary frauds as Life magazine's purchase of the billionaire Howard Hughes's nonexistent "autobiography" in the seventies and Rupert Murdoch's similarly extravagant embrace of the bogus Hitler "diaries" in the eighties. In Logan's case, she perpetrated an out-and-out fictional character: a pseudonymous security contractor who peddled a made-up "eyewitness" account of the murder of four Americans in Benghazi. The point seemed to be to further Benghazi as a conservative political cause (instead, Logan's hoax boomeranged and extinguished it) and to melodramatically exploit the tragic slaughter of Ambassador Chris Stevens and his colleagues as titillating prime-time network entertainment. Logan's phony source, who in fact was at a beachside villa and not on site to witness anything, cooked up violent new "details" for the Benghazi narrative that seemed to have been lifted from a Jean Claude Van Damme movie.

Here are a few questions that Logan's "apology" - every bit as bogus as the story itself - failed to answer. (1) How could Logan (by her own account) have worked "for a year" on this report and not done the elementary cross-checking that allowed Karen De Young of the Washington Post to expose the fraud almost immediately after it aired? Indeed, what was Logan doing during that long year? (2) Why did CBS News trust a reporter with such obvious political agendas? Logan had given an over-the-top red-meat political speech about Benghazi around the time she started pursuing the story a year ago. And she had also maligned the patriotism of the late reporter Michael Hastings when he had the audacity to question the loyalty and judgment of the American General Stanley McChrystal and his cohort in Afghanistan. (3) What was the relationship between Logan, her source, and the source's publisher, which is also owned by CBS? Accounts of the 60 Minutes scandal keep referring to that publisher as Simon & Schuster, but that's not strictly accurate. Logan's source was not being published by the S&S that is bringing out Doris Kearns Goodwin's new book on Teddy Roosevelt. His book was being published instead by an S&S subdivision, Threshold, whose authors include Glenn Beck, Karl Rove, Mark Levin, Lynne Cheney, and Jerome Corsi, best known for promoting the Swift Boating of John Kerry and the birther conspiracies about Barack Obama. Why would Logan and CBS News be in bed with such a partisan publisher? Who was the editor who vetted the book containing the same hoax that Logan aired on 60 Minutes? (Threshold's editor-in-chief is Mary Matalin.) (4) Logan said in her apology that it was "a mistake" to have included her source in her report. But as many have asked, what was the report without that source? Inquiring minds do want to know.

CBS News is now stonewalling, refusing to answer tough questions by serious media reporters like Paul Farhi of the Washington Post. That seems another mistake. Stephen Colbert's devastating parody of the whole incident, with a cameo appearance by Sam Waterston in Newsroom guise, is taking on a viral life of its own. There are so many holes in Logan's story that other ambitious journalists will race to fill them in. CBS may be trying to enforce a different standard than it did on the Dan Rather - 60 Minutes II calamity of 2004, but wishing will not make this one go away.

In an interview released yesterday, Bill Clinton opined that President Obama should put a stop to the Affordable Care Act's much-publicized insurance-policy cancellations, even though most policy experts agree that they're necessary for the act to work. Is this just the Big Dog harmlessly shooting off his mouth? Or is the man whom Obama dubbed his "Secretary of Explaining Stuff" once again proving more liability than ally?

With all due respect to the power of Bill Clinton to suck the air out of a 24-hour-news cycle and be the bull in any Democratic china shop, he is not the problem with the Affordable Care Act. The overriding problems are the ineptitude of the rollout and President Obama's repeated iteration of a promise (that no one will be thrown off an existing policy) that was both false and in fact counter to the whole point of the law. In any case, Clinton's quick fix would undermine the ACA further, but he's not alone among Democrats proposing it or something like it: Dianne Feinstein has now embraced a similar notion, and she's not some outlier but the senior senator of the biggest blue state in the country. None of this noise will make any permanent difference if the Obama administration fixes all the technical screw-ups, and not just the web portal, that have contaminated this law. And of course it will help, too, if the White House comes up with other temporary fixes on policy cancellations (as it seems to be groping for right now). But if the ACA isn't up and running in a nearly efficient way as we head into the election year of 2014, the law may go down, particularly if a new Congress is swept in that has a shot at dismantling it.

In his current New Republic cover story, Noam Scheiber argues that Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren might capitalize on the Democratic party's increasing populism and best Hillary Clinton for the presidential nomination. Do you buy Schreiber's premise that a more populist Democratic party will show up to the primaries in 2016? And do you think that Warren - or another candidate - could ride that wave to a victory over Clinton?

I don't accept some of the premises here, and like all speculation about 2016, it's so hypothetical that we will only look back and laugh at all of it in a few years. If we assume that Hillary Clinton is indeed running in 2016 - itself not certain - we can't have a horse-race narrative in 2013 unless there's some Democrat who could oppose her as Obama did in 2008. But who? No one believes it will be Joe Biden. Andrew Cuomo can't challenge her. Who does that leave on the Democratic bench to make this a contest? Well, why not draft Elizabeth Warren to thicken the plot? She's an enormously appealing, whip-smart champion of populist ideas, from serious banking-financial-regulatory reform to the full spectrum of issues pertaining to economic inequality, that have been slighted (or worse) by the Lawrence Summers - Robert Rubin - Wall Street culture that has dominated policy-making in both the Bill Clinton and Obama administrations. But does Warren show any signs of (or even passing interest in) running for president? No. Could a Massachusetts liberal be an effective national candidate? Probably not. Still, let's hope she does run if only, as everyone says, to galvanize an overdue economic debate. But in truth, that debate is going to come whether Warren runs or not: Populism is just as hot a force, albeit with different parameters, in the GOP base as it is among Democrats. The bigger story of American politics to come has less to do with the presidential horse race than with a pattern that has emerged steadily since the 2008 financial meltdown: The economic grievances that fueled Occupy Wall Street and the tea party are two sides of the same coin, and someone in one party or the other is going to figure out how to harness that crossover political constituency.

Yesterday NBC released a poll in which it asked respondents to choose between 2016's presumptive nominees du jour Hillary Clinton and Chris Christie. (Clinton came out ahead 43 percent to 33 percent.) Which would be a better race for this country: Clinton vs. Christie or Elizabeth Warren vs. Ted Cruz?

Excuse me for being a stickler on this point, but I see zero chance that Chris Christie could be nominated for president by the GOP unless the entire Republican convention is controlled by his unofficial campaign organization, MSNBC's Morning Joe. The base of the GOP - the activist base that will actually vote in primaries and caucuses - loathes Christie and much of the squishy conservatism he stands for. He will fare no better with this base than Rudy Giuliani did, and Rudy at least had 9/11 at his back. In any case, your theoretical Clinton vs. Christie race would be all too predictable and tedious in style and substance, if not outcome. On the other hand Warren vs. Cruz, while also implausible, would be one hell of a ride. Or what about Rand Paul vs. Wendy Davis? Three years until Election Day, why not dream?

 

Comments   

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
+116 # Capn Canard 2013-11-14 12:37
I watched that report on 60 Minutes and my gut reaction was that it was a straight up fabrication. I am no news insider but the whole thing stunk of deception. I certainly don't know Lara Logan(she seems like nothing more than eye candy), but her work here seemed at best incompetent. She asked almost no tough questions of this idiot who "claimed" to be a mercenary. But, the very nature of being a "mercenary" suggest that his word cannot be trusted... at all. As it is standard that a mercenary does what he is told for profit. Not a reliable source of information. If CBS wants to be a trusted new source then they need to shit-can Logan ASAP, but I trust they won't because the American public is far too easy to manipulate. No way in hell would this go over as legitimate journalism anywhere else in the world. Logan is worthless and could easily be replaced by Poncho Denews.

Thank you, Frank Rich.
 
 
+92 # pwehrle 2013-11-14 13:53
Right on. I watched that guy's eyes for about 20 seconds and knew he was lying through his teeth. Last time I saw something that obvious was when Colin Powell lied to the UN...of course, we could mention W and Dick on multiple occasions.
 
 
+23 # Lorraine B. 2013-11-14 15:06
Hmmm... many interesting points made in the article. but sticking to the hook thesis - was Lara Logan a dupe or a party to the hoax? Was it all just a big book selling scheme, designed to maximize the Amazon traffic before the lid got blown off?
 
 
+47 # bigkahuna671 2013-11-14 15:53
I think "party to the hoax" is appropriate. She's been trying to prove she's a serious journalist and needed a landmark story to give her career credibility. Unfortunately for her, all she did was cast a shadow over anything she does now.
 
 
+14 # Michaeljohn 2013-11-14 16:29
Hmmm, wonder how the sexual assault two years ago by an Egyptian mob may have affected her attitude and willingness to hype the Benghazi attack.
 
 
0 # Capn Canard 2013-11-15 11:03
Michaeljohn, I am still incredulous toward that whole Egyptian sexual assault incident. I am not saying that it isn't plausible, but it really does have a kind of an immature, yellow journalistic story telling quality to it. Like something teenagers would say to get out of being caught in a lie. Sorry but I just couldn't buy it. That said, I hope that I am wrong.
 
 
0 # Pancho 2013-11-17 01:43
I don't think so. Too risky to chance.
 
 
+10 # George D 2013-11-15 23:01
Well, I didn't "know" the report was false and the guy was lying, but I certainly thought there was something wrong with him.

I used to love 60-Minutes. I watched Mike Wallace and Dan Rather do REAL reporting and I felt like I actually learned about something important after watching it. I felt that the story about Tora Bora was very believable but nothing came of it. Supposedly, Cheney himself told them to stand down when they had OBL trapped and in their sites. Now; I don't know if anything they've reported is true or just a "made for T.V. drama".

They fired Dan Rather for having a shady source for his expose' on GWB but never denied the validity of any of the data.

All I can say is, America needs a news service that actually uncovers real information and one that can be trusted. I won't be watching 60-Minutes anymore. A mistake can be overlooked but a hoax is something different.

It seems that FOX has set a new standard for "success" in the "news" business in America. And all of America has lost because of that.
 
 
+5 # Pancho 2013-11-17 01:46
I think Dan Rather got set up by a far more sophisticated scam than did Logan.

I suspect that Karl Rove, in a moment of pure genius, decided the best way to defuse Bush's lost year on AWOL would be to trap a well-known correspondent with easily forged and easily exposed papers.

It if was Karl, you've got to hand it to the sleazy bastard, it worked!
 
 
+1 # RICHARDKANEpa 2013-11-16 05:21
Capn Canard, I wish you had taped not just analyzed this report and provided a link so that those like myself who want to see it before commenting can do.

There is some kind of overwhelming desire to prove that the systematically insulting and inflammatory porn flick, “The Innocence of Mohammad” had nothing to due with Benghazi and Ambassador Chris Stevens' death. This is more than a hoax, or even a right-wing conspiracy.

At the very least all the anger over the film made militants feel safe to kill an American most Libyans really liked. Likewise militant Muslims would never had gunned down gangland style, a Muslim women for pushing for education, but the anger over the hate porn film made them feel safe to shoot Malala Yousafzai point blank directly to the head.

Amazingly with the Navy Seals who defied orders to stand down and tried to rescue Chris Stevens, none of them had relatives who cried out for vengeance. In Asia when protesters of the film couldn't find a handy AUS target to vent off steam with, they burned a Buddhist shrine instead, setting off tit for tat revenge killings continuing among Buddhists and Muslims until today.

Maybe the reason the Navy Seal's couldn't find the ambassador, was because he was hiding from them. He rea
 
 
+87 # fredboy 2013-11-14 14:13
A hoax indeed, in the spirit of the New York Times' WMD reports about Iraq.

Isn't it amazing how the media is simply a political toy now?

A friend recently told me he believes being a whore is the only real legitimate profession: because whores admit to being whores.
 
 
+4 # Lorraine B. 2013-11-14 15:07
Hmmm... many interesting points made in the article. but sticking to the hook thesis - was Lara Logan a dupe or a party to the hoax? Was it all just a big book selling scheme, designed to maximize the Amazon traffic before the lid got blown off?
 
 
+7 # barbaratodish 2013-11-14 15:15
# fredboy 2013-11-14 14:13
A hoax indeed, in the spirit of the New York Times' WMD reports about Iraq.

Isn't it amazing how the media is simply a political toy now?

A friend recently told me he believes being a whore is the only real legitimate profession: because whores admit to being whores.

Sometimes, fredboy, you are prevented from even whore legitimacy: I was told that I was not a real prostitute by a member of a sexworkers association:SWO P. I had ( or so I thought) been a prostitute for 3 months back in 1986 when I was homeless and desperate. "You were not a real prostitute", this SWOP member told me, to my great surprize. I sure do get REAL "stigma" though, because I went public with what I did to survive for those 3 months in 1986 (what did I do, if not sell sex for money, I wonder????)
 
 
+20 # karenvista 2013-11-14 18:35
Glad you survived and thrived! Looking back on my working past I lost my job when Reagan was president and when Bush I was president. We never had catastrophes when Democrats were in office.

I believe that Bush II had planned for the catastrophe he created to blow up on the next president's watch. He just planned it incorrectly, like he did everything else.

I see that your hard time happened during the Reagan administration too. I'm glad you made it. A lot of people don't make it through these planned catastrophes that profit the rich and destroy the poor.
 
 
+21 # unitedwestand 2013-11-14 23:20
I have a friend who goes ballistic when anyone mentions Reagan's name. She was a college student when Reagan was Governor of California and he increased college tuitions drastically, and she lost a grant she was planning to get, and was not able to finish her college degree.
As for myself, I remember being out of work for months and couldn't find a job to save my life.

We in California had to put up with Reagan 8 years longer than the rest of the nation. He was a B rated actor but an A++, award winning political actor.
 
 
+19 # karenvista 2013-11-14 18:29
Quoting fredboy:

A friend recently told me he believes being a whore is the only real legitimate profession: because whores admit to being whores.


Our political class and most journalists are obvious whores. The only surprise is what cheap whores they are.
 
 
+9 # Capn Canard 2013-11-15 11:20
Agreed. I am reminded of 1980s when Brian Eno had said Russian musicians told him that America had more censorship than the former USSR. They claimed that America has true censorship, because Americans don't know that the news they are being shown in print, television and radio is what the Power of America(i.e. almost Authoritarian power) has approved of as "News". In other words we can't trust our news media to tell us the truth. They will tell us a story that they see as plausible. I would like to point out that Seymour Hersh(he is almost off the radar!) reported 2 or 3 years ago that a war with Iran was being planned and they are still trying to push for a war with Iran. In the meantime we are hearing more bits and pieces of more Iranian Nuclear ambitions. Is Iran really a threat? No. The real "news" is that Iran has plenty of oil, and oil is the ticket of control for American economic might. Without control of oil the power of the American dollar would degrade America into a third world economy. Yeah, the whores of journalism just do what they are paid to do, tell stories that don't upset their pay masters.
 
 
+2 # Pancho 2013-11-17 01:47
Are you saying that Ann Coulter has finally owned up to her actual role?
 
 
+1 # Lorraine B. 2013-11-14 15:05
Hmmm... many interesting points made in the article. but sticking to the hook thesis - was Lara Logan a dupe or a party to the hoax? Was it all just a big book selling scheme, designed to maximize the Amazon traffic before the lid got blown off?
 
 
+29 # Old Man 2013-11-14 15:08
The so called "mercenary" was just trying to sell his book, a book of lies, what a hoax indeed. Great job Frank Rich!
 
 
+25 # mighead 2013-11-14 15:24
When a newscaster has lost all credibility, it's time for them to do something else.
 
 
+55 # Radscal 2013-11-14 15:29
I think we need to keep in mind just who CBS is.

CBS was founded by William Paley, who was head of propaganda for the Army Psychological Warfare Division during WW II.

CBS was owned by Westinghouse, which was one of the world's largest military contractors.

CBS was then merged with Viacom, which was founded by Summer Redstone who was in "Special Branch Military Intelligence" during WW II.

"Consider the source" remains a relevant proscription.
 
 
-5 # ptalady 2013-11-14 17:51
prEscription
 
 
0 # NOMINAE 2013-11-16 22:06
Quoting ptalady:
prEscription


Ooops ! You are placing your own ignorance on display, here, ptalady - no wonder our schools are being so dumbed down.

As a bit of a Grammar Nazi myself, may I suggest that, at a minimum, you take a few seconds to consult the dictionary before you presume to "correct" a word regarding which you are apparently clueless yourself ?

Look up "proscription", and you will discover that, not only is it a proper word, but that (as the author obviously knew), it makes *loads* more sense in the context to which it was applied than did your risible Church Lady insistence upon the word : "prescription".
 
 
+39 # Billsy 2013-11-14 15:33
I well recall that Lara Logan attempted to discredit deceased journalist michael hastings when he published accounts of his experience embedded with General McChrystal. Hasting's account led to the resignation of this insubordinate commander. Logan's snarky comments, attempting to discredit Hasting's account, smacked of sour grapes and envy of his hard working journalism.

Next we had her self-serving cries of victimization when she was attacked in Tahir square, easily targeted because she was obviously part of a well funded mainstream american media crew. The "Democracy Now" journalists, led by an egyptian national, far more skillfully and selflessly embedded themselves among the demonstrators and at far less cost.

She has at last, no credibility and no relevancy on issues of national importance. Meanwhile, where's Dan Rather?
 
 
+24 # Shorey13 2013-11-14 15:47
Always amazing how life imitates art. HBO's wonderful feature "Newsroom" spent most of last season dealing with a false report which purported to reveal a chemical warfare attack by US forces in Afghanistan and turned out to be a hoax created by an ambitious and amoral producer. The subsequent outcry almost exactly mirrored the aftermath of the false report on 60 Minutes. Of course it was a hoax. After all, they had a book to sell. Duh.
 
 
+8 # Shorey13 2013-11-14 15:53
Also, regarding Rich's closing comments on the 2016 Presidential campaign, if we had a legitimate political system (which we don't) there would be at least four serious candidates for President: Hillary, Elizabeth Warren, Christie and Ted Cruz. You read it first here....
 
 
+25 # arquebus 2013-11-14 16:15
Re: Benghazi. To paraphrase Stein....there is no story there. Never was.
 
 
+22 # Rain17 2013-11-14 20:52
This isn't the first dishonest report from 60 Minutes. About a month or two ago they ran a hatchet job attacking the SSDI program. Their only "source" was Senator Inhofe. The report relied on only one viewpoint of the program and implied that there was widespread fraud and all these undeserving people were getting benefits.

The report was basically a right-wing dream. It implied that it was easy to get benefits and that there was widespread fraud. This is in spite of the fact that the approval rating is very low and that it often requires an attorney and at least one appeal to eventually get approved. And this is in spite of the fact that the average monthly benefit is around $1000.

So 60 Minutes recently has quite definitely fallen short of accurate and professional journalism. But it's amazing that, while the Benghazi story got all the attention, everyone seems to have forgotten the hatchet job piece on SSDI they ran about a month or so ago.
 
 
+16 # karenvista 2013-11-14 20:53
Am I the only one who wonders what Lara Logan was doing with this guy for the year that she said she was investigating this story and didn't even check to see if he had told his company or the FBI the same story? I don't see how a year could be spent on "investigation" without investigating.

Her coochy-coo voice sickens me.
 
 
+7 # Capn Canard 2013-11-15 11:33
Yes, and that a$$hole didn't come off as believable at all. BTW, Lara Logan's behavior was brilliantly satirized by Stephen Colbert when he "interviewed CBS intern Poncho Denews" on the Colbert Report. Effing brilliant.
 
 
+19 # American Peasant 2013-11-14 21:11
This Dylan Davies seems to be quite a nut-case, - either way you look at it.

Whether he was there or not,... ultimately,... does it really matter?

Of course, what matters is "inventing the news and various phony crisises", which 60 Minutes is not usually known for;....that "news distortion" is usually done by Republicans . But, is this Dylan Davies guy - all there is - to the "Story of Bengazi?" What is the big deal? They didn't have enough security is what it boils down to. Republicans wouldn't "foot the bill". Shit happens.

60 Minutes made a terrible mistake, not vetting this guy & his story more (and perhaps even Lara Logan); especially since 60 Minutes was considered the "gold standard" so to speak, of reporting.

Bengazi to me, was a tragedy. Cutting off of people's hands in Sierra Leon was a tragedy. Sandy Hook was a tragedy. Wall Street's derivatives & the $700 Billion Dollar "no-regulations , no accountability" bank-give-away was a tragedy, 9/11 was a tragedy. And if we don't wake up, smell the coffee, and get personally involved in at least one issue, to help our country, our people, our planet and the world,.... then the dream of this country - will become the greatest "American Tragedy".
 
 
+3 # Capn Canard 2013-11-15 11:36
Hear! hear!

Yeah, it looks like we are at the tipping point and sliding toward despair.
 
 
+7 # mighead 2013-11-15 03:34
My understanding is that a guy imported from Fox news is now heading up CBS news.

So for me, CBS now has the credibility of Fox; as defined by their Benghazi coverage. I.e., lies presented as news reports.

I don't fault the reporter so much here as the CBS Management. The reporter is clearly only "reporting" what MANAGEMENT TOLD her to say!!!

CBS certainly knew what they were getting when they hired a Fox News guy to run their news programming.

The VERY LEAST response any RESPONSIBLE news source would make here would be to issue an entirely new program CONTAINING THE FACTS.

Apparently, that's not happening here.

So in essence, CBS is lying. And I can only assume they will continue to do so. It seems their policies now align with those of Fox News.

Walter Cronkite must be turning over in his grave to see CBS promulgating such OBVIOUS lies.

So basically, I expect the lies will get worse and more pervasive until they infect all of CBS' news programming.

Sad to see such a great news broadcaster turn to such a pitiful demise.
 
 
+3 # Capn Canard 2013-11-15 11:38
I would fault her, because in such an organization you have to play their game and she is playing her part to make herself a bigger personality in the MSM. That is how the game is played. As always truth is a casualty of war.
 
 
+7 # memo 2013-11-15 09:40
November 15
I saw the program. After 2-3 minutes I was sure it was a hoax not a mistake. CBS is the shadow of its past. I watched Walter Cronkite from day one until he passed away. It makes me sick to my stomach that CBS dishonored Walter Cronkite's memory. What can you expectfrom CBS/Fox News? As for Lara Logan she should be dumped in the waste bin. At least Ann Coulter is a "bimbo with a brain". Lara is neither a bimbo nor brainy. You wonder what "research" she carried with the "mercenary" whistleblower? Well, they must have tried a number of positions from the Kama Suthra and invented some new ones. Personally, I woulsn't touch her with a 10 foot pole.
Aygen,
Istanbul, Turkey
 
 
+3 # NOMINAE 2013-11-16 22:33
Quoting memo:
At least Ann Coulter is a "bimbo with a brain"......


Wow ! Isn't perception an amazing thing ?

From my perspective, seeing Ann Coulter as being possessed of any more intelligence than it takes to be a bitchy, snarky, sniping Queen of the "Mean Girls" table in a seventh Grade lunchroom, is to vastly overestimating her intellect even more so than she herself is constantly doing.

Coulter knows how to sell attitude, that's all. So perhaps she, like Madonna, is a marketing genius. Blessed only with mediocre talent, both women have managed to build wildly undeserved financial fortunes. As does Paris Hilton on even less intelligence and talent.

Really, if Coulter wasn't promoted by Bill Maher and a few other acolytes, we would remain pleasantly unaware of her existence as long as we are not drawn to the "bomb thrower" section of bile-spewing logorrhea that passes in some circles for "books" these days.

Coulter angrily insists (at the drop of a hat) that she is a "best selling author". She herself is oblivious to the fact that peddling putrid bile does not place one in the same category as "authors", no mater how much people pay to hear her regurgitate her political porn.

If Ann Coulter is an example of a "bimbo with a brain" I would sorely grieve what that would say about human intelligence in general.
 
 
+1 # neohip 2013-11-15 16:49
What a travesty! How could this happen in America. And what a vital and important story. Yes thank you Frank Rich for such an outstanding piece of journalism. Are you kidding me? Who cares? More distractions and hardly a speaking of truth to power. What a hoax on top of a hoax. Stop you're killing me.
 
 
0 # RICHARDKANEpa 2013-11-16 05:29
Capn Canard, I wish you had taped not just analyzed this report and provided a link so that those like myself who want to see it before commenting can do.

There is some kind of overwhelming desire to prove that the systematically insulting and inflammatory porn flick, “The Innocence of Mohammad” had nothing to due with Benghazi and Ambassador Chris Stevens' death. This is more than a hoax, or even a right-wing conspiracy.

At the very least all the anger over the film made militants feel safe to kill an American most Libyans really liked. Likewise militant Muslims would never had gunned down a woman point blank to the head gangland style, like the hysteria worked them into with Malala Yousafzai.

Amazingly with the Navy Seals who defied orders to stand down and tried to rescue Chris Stevens, none of them had relatives who cried out for vengeance. In Asia when protesters of the film couldn't find a handy AUS target to vent off steam with, they burned a Buddhist shrine instead, setting off tit for tat revenge killings continuing among Buddhists and Muslims until today.

Maybe Chris Stevins hid from them realizing his death would stop tit for tat revenge deaths. If so thank you Ambassador Stevens.

More detail on Chris Stevens perhaps wanting to be a martyr, and some obvious detail many avoid seeing like al Qaeda wanting to help bankrupt America @
http://readersupportednews.org/pm-section/29-29/20354-benghazi-is-an-albatross-around-hilarys-neck
 
 
0 # barbaratodish 2013-11-17 06:41
[quote name="RICHARDKA NEpa"]There is some kind of overwhelming desire to prove that the systematically insulting and inflammatory porn flick, “The Innocence of Mohammad” had nothing to due with Benghazi and Ambassador Chris Stevens' death. This is more than a hoax, or even a right-wing conspiracy. At the very least all the anger over the film made militants feel safe to kill an American most Libyans really liked. Likewise militant Muslims would never had gunned down a woman point blank to the head gangland style, like the hysteria worked them into with Malala Yousafzai. Amazingly with the Navy Seals who defied orders to stand down and tried to rescue Chris Stevens, none of them had relatives who cried out for vengeance. In Asia when protesters of the film couldn't find a handy AUS target to vent off steam with, they burned a Buddhist shrine instead, setting off tit for tat revenge killings continuing among Buddhists and Muslims until today. Maybe Chris Stevins hid from them realizing his death would stop tit for tat revenge deaths. If so thank you Ambassador Stevens. More detail on Chris Stevens perhaps wanting to be a martyr, & some obvious detail many avoid..." Quote

The film was "The Innocence of Muslims."
I wonder why that, as you call it, "porn flick" was protested against, too, when Bill Maher's, "Religulous" would have been appropo for a "pretext to protest". Maher's film would've had to have been given a kind of a re-birth, tho, because it was an older docu-comedy
 
 
+5 # Interested Observer 2013-11-17 07:37
"CBS may be trying to enforce a different standard than it did on the Dan Rather".

Can we now bury once and for all the myth of "liberal bias in the media"?
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN