Posted on 10/28/2012 11:53:47 PM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Let’s 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 left’s 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 Clinton’s 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 that’s not counting conservative figures like Jennifer Rubin at the Washington Post.
Mainstream media coverage has repeated Panetta’s 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 Schieffer’s questions. When Bob Schieffer asked him about Susan Rice’s false statements about the video, Emanuel began rambling about Obama’s 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 Times’s 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 can’t 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.
the Arab-Kenyan Barack Hussein Obama II, (a.k.a. Barry Soetoro) as U.S. Ambassador to Libya,
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 command’s 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
Thank you!
Today's MSM needs to be tarred and feathered.
We’ll keep hammering until we get answers. And the media are co-conspirators. Thank God people are waking up. This will NOT go unanswered. Not on our watch.
Sadly, it isn’t just the media that is careful to close their eyes and look the other way. Those who consistently vote Dem don’t want to know the truth, either. The nation is split into those who want the best for the country as a whole and those who either are looking for handouts or are owned by unions - two segments of society who feel that the end justifies the means.
The allusion to Charles I is apt..
The numb mindset of the MSM is astonishing. If just one of the reporters would “break” this story, he/she would be a rock star forever, get a Pulitzer Prize, etc., similar to Woodward and Bernstein. Benghazi is a tsunami compared to piddly Watergate.
So reporters prefer to protect Obama and, in the process, sabotage their own careers and the future of America. What defect in a brain could make someone make this decision?
(I know; Fox has done this and Jennifer Griffin broke the story and should get the PP, but that would never happen for Fox.)
There was not ONE word in my Sunday paper about this.
Media’s not only to blame....not a PEEP out of Romney. Sorry, but with everything we now know, as long as he remains silent, IMO, he’s complict too.
See #31 for how it works.
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.