Skip to comments.The Media’s Cover-Up of Benghazigate
Posted on 10/28/2012 11:53:47 PM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Lets go back to 2004. Cindy Sheehan had been turned into a media star during the 2004 presidential election for no reason other than that her son had died and she was willing to lend her name to the lefts campaign. There was no specific issue that Sheehan raised, but nevertheless the media was willing to cover her every sneeze.
And now 2012. Charles Woods, the father of Tyrone Woods, one of the Navy SEALS killed at the Benghazi consulate, has made serious allegations about his encounter with Hillary Clinton and the refusal of the Obama Administration to save his son. And the media has conducted a complete blackout of the story.
The only mainstream media outlets to report on it are ABC News where Jake Tapper occasionally challenges the administration, but Tapper carefully left out Hillary Clintons statement that they were going after the Mohammed filmmaker, which may be the most damning part of the story. And the Christian Science Monitor which leans left but also has a history of being somewhat independent. And thats not counting conservative figures like Jennifer Rubin at the Washington Post.
Mainstream media coverage has repeated Panettas statement that the rescue could not happen because of a lack of intel, without challenging it in any way. There is hardly any coverage of the controversy because the media refuses to touch it. And yet how can the statements of Senator McCain and Charles Woods not be covered? They can only be sidelined until the election, which is what the media is doing, buying a little more time for Obama to win.
Rahm Emanuel hit the morning shows, mechanically reciting talking points about Obama bringing the killers to justice just like he did Osama bin Laden, while avoiding Bob Schieffers questions. When Bob Schieffer asked him about Susan Rices false statements about the video, Emanuel began rambling about Obamas nation building plan at home to provide broadband access.
But at least Bob Schieffer was making an effort. David Gregory shut down any discussion about Libya. Meanwhile the New York Times chose to suppress coverage of the Congressional hearings on Libya, instead covering six better stories on affirmative action and Lance Armstrong.
New York Times public editor Margaret Sullivan commented,
I believe that the Libya hearing story belonged on The Timess front page. It had significant news value, regardless of the political maneuvering that is inevitable with less than four weeks to go until the election. And more broadly, there is a great deal of substance on this subject that warrants further scrutiny.
I cant think of many journalistic subjects that are more important right now, or more deserving of aggressive reporting.
But the only aggressive coverage of Benghazigate is coming from FOX News. By refusing to cover Benghazigate, the media is acting to cover it up, at least long enough to give the man responsible for it another chance at the Oval Office.
Suppose Obama wins and then the truth of the matter dawns on the public at large. Does Obama think he can then still govern? Maybe by more than ever ruling by executive orders. He will then be outside the Cobstitution, but I doubt her cares. The House will still be Republican, and so I guess must treat Obama as the House of Commons treated Charles I. Something like civil war would ensue. And there are, what two hundred million guns in this country. May sound melodramatic, but we are in new territory here.
I had forgotten about Cindy and her “absolute moral authority” (I think that was Maureen Dowd). Funny how some things only work against Republican presidents and not Democrat presidents...
I believe that the press, by acting to blatantly promote 0bambi, is depriving each and every one of us our First Amendment rights. Freedom of the press is NOT just for those in the media. It is a right for ALL people.
After a few days people are not really going to be interested in a New York story (I will be, but that’s just because).
They’ll be tapping into new news sources.
Some guy in mid Ohio is not going to change a vote because BO is helping NYers.
In Penn., there are more broke glass repubs than hurricaine dems, I’d imagine.
All the other affected states are solid blue x NH
Lack of Strike Force Impeded Benghazi Response "As U.S. Africa Command waited for any order to rescue Americans on Sept. 11 at the besieged consulate and CIA annex in Benghazi, Libya, it was missing a key unit that the Pentagon gives every regional four-star commander an emergency strike force.
The new commands lack of such a unit is another piece in the unfolding Benghazi timeline that shows an overriding theme: As radical Islamic extremism swelled in the chaotic coastal city, U.S. security assets in Libya diminished................."
Video: Pat Caddell lets loose!
Between now and the election Obama must be made to
tell as many more lies as possible. Why? Because if he
does win his statements will be part of the public record
which can be used against him when the sh*t finally hits
the fan. Only Romney can make this happen by continually
challenging Obama to come clean with the truth. No in-
vestigation is necessary to compel Obama to explain the
lies surrounding his administration both during and after
the attack. Sadly Romney is not doing his duty.
Thanks. I watched it on fox news.
Charlene Lamb refused (”denied or ignored”) to extend the security Strike Force.
“......The colonel and Mr. Nordstrom were fighting a long-distance battle of emails and phone calls with the State Department to maintain a large security presence.
But Charlene Lamb, who was in charge of international programs for the State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security, rejected their requests. State wanted to create a picture of normal operations in Libya......”
Read more: Lack of strike force impeded Benghazi response - Washington Times http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/28/lack-of-strike-force-impeded-benghazi-response/#ixzz2AfsQ2tDs