Skip to comments.Media Bias 101: Benghazi vs. Watergate and Iran-Contra
Posted on 11/02/2012 3:47:43 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Question: How is Benghazi different from Watergate and Iran-Contra? The obvious answer: the media. Liberal journalists turned Watergate and Iran-Contra into gigantic national scandals by their consistent, relentless pursuit of both stories; to the contrary, they are consistently, relentlessly ignoring Benghazi...................
......The operative words are "searched diligently." CBS, NBC, ABC, the New York Times, the Washington Post, NPR, and the usual suspects looked everywhere for something -- gee, anything -- to hurt Reagan. Being political partisans first and journalists second, they dug furiously for their Watergate. And they thought they had it in Iran-Contra.
It's fascinating, however, to see how the Reagan team immediately reacted to the Iran-Contra allegations. The president and his attorney general wanted prompt and full disclosure. As soon as Attorney General Ed Meese learned of the situation, he brought it to President Reagan, and they together publicly disclosed the details to a hysterical media on November 25, 1986. They wanted to come clean immediately, to avoid even the slightest whiff of a cover up.
The media, however, was ferocious in its lack of charity and understanding, and ditto for its party, the Democrats, which ran Congress. In mere weeks, Lawrence Walsh, a former federal judge, was appointed Independent Counsel to determine whether the deal was illegal and which individuals should be prosecuted. For the press, the big question was the president's personal knowledge and involvement: What did Reagan know?..........
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
It seems as if the media needs a ‘Water’ or ‘White’ prefix before they pay attention.
i.e. Watergate, Whitewater, Whitewash.
The cavalier attitude that BO is showing towards NY & NJ residents in crisis should be called: White WaterWorld.
Benghazi should be his Waterloo.
As I stated in another post, we now know that this was not a true embassy/consulate in Benghazi. This was a CIA led guns/arms running scheme to the rebels in Libya. They used the cover of a bogus consulate. Stevens was an integral part of the gun running which put heavy weapons and antiaircraft missiles in the hands of Al Qaeda and other radical Islamists groups. Obama approved the gun/arms running knowing that these heavy weapons could potentially be used against Americans. No assistance was provided to the Americans in Benghazi because if we had gone in with assets like drone strikes or other platforms and killed innocent Libyans, the truth would have come out about our gun running. IMHO. If the media had done the same kind of digging that they did with Reagan and Iran-Contra affair, we would have learned the truth much sooner.
The Libyan revolt started mid Feb. 2011. Soon after, July 1, 2011,Leon Panetta ( Bill Clinton’s former chief of staff) was appointed to head the DOD, leaving his post at the CIA. At about the same time or shortly before, CIA and British SPEC-OPs were inserted into Libya. Purportedly Hillary was lobbying for increased active efforts to support the rebels, with Huma Abedin whispering in her ear.
Soon after the first reports of the missing MANPADS surfaced. Did the Obama gun running idea originate at that time? I think this might have been the jump off point.
Whatever role the CIA played in the Benghazi/weapons debacle, it originated with Panetta at the head of the CIA.
The deep rooted moles from the Carter-Clinton regimes have their fingerprints all over the foreign policy failures.
The damage to our armed forces and intel operations exceeds that of Carter and Clinton at a time of active global islamist aggression. And I suspect the CIA under Petraeus will ultimately be more damaged then under Adm. Stansfield Turner.
Bookmarking your post for future reference.
“The Libyan revolt started mid Feb. 2011. Soon after, July 1, 2011,Leon Panetta ( Bill Clintons former chief of staff) was appointed to head the DOD, leaving his post at the CIA.”
A very salient point we need to remember, although that still doesn’t absolve petraeus of responsibility for what happened after he assumed the office at cia.
I have been saying all along from day one that this is classic clinton. CLASSIC.