Skip to comments.Mainstream media watchdogs are toothless covering Obama and Libya scandal
Posted on 10/27/2012 7:10:53 AM PDT by tobyhill
When Mitt Romney chose not to directly engage President Obama on Libya in last Mondays third presidential debate, the mainstream media wrote it off as over-caution on the Republican challengers part.
That might be true. Certainly a lot of Republicans think so.
But what is the mainstream medias excuse for cautiously engaging the president on Libya? Arent we supposed to be watchdogs? The ongoing story is story focused on whether the Obama administration provided, or refused to provide, adequate protection for the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya when it faced the threat of attack on Sept. 11. The attack left the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans dead. Subsequent conflicting accounts coming from the administration on how the White House responded, or didnt respond, are tailor-made for a full-blown media feeding frenzy.
Yet, the so-called media watchdogs so far have been mostly toothless.
Case in point: On Friday, FoxNews.com reported that it learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that an urgent request from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. consulate and subsequent attack several hours later on the annex itself was denied by the CIA chain of command... -- who also told the CIA operators twice to "stand down" rather than help the ambassador's team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.