Skip to comments.Benghazi lives:media congratulates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for successfully deceiving them
Posted on 01/17/2014 5:31:37 AM PST by bestintxas
Heres NBC News explaining why the media of course thinks bridge lane closings in New Jersey are a thousand times more interesting than four dead Americans in Benghazi, and the continued unraveling of the Administrations endless lies about it:
As NBCs Andrea Mitchell reported on Nightly News last night, The Senate Intelligence Committee has categorically blamed the State Department for ignoring multiple warnings and failing to provide adequate security. And heres the New York Times headline: Benghazi Attack Called Avoidable in Senate Report. But there are some significant differences between the two stories as far as political implications go for the two potential candidates in question.
First, Benghazi has been litigated for almost a year and a half (in the 2012 election, in independent reports, at congressional hearings), while the bridge story is really just a week old. And what the Senate Intelligence Report found is pretty much what we thought we already knew the State Department didnt provide enough security, there was no advance knowledge of an imminent attack, and the U.S. military was not in position to respond in enough time. But what this report didnt find: evidence of a cover-up and more importantly for Clinton, evidence that she directed one.
A second difference is that Hillary Clinton has 20 years on the national stage (including a thoroughly litigated presidential bid in 08) to balance out a bad story, while Christie is still making his first impression on the national stage. And of course, a third difference is that no Democrats believe the worst about Hillary (and might try to take advantage of it) when it comes to Benghazi, while the same isnt true for Christie. Plenty of Republicans, particularly conservatives who were never enamored with Christie in the first place, do believe the worst
(Excerpt) Read more at humanevents.com ...
The media rules of engagement, for marxists, are that once a candidate has won an election, the past is wiped clean by the voters and is no longer material.
Was the commission even CHARGED with the task of looking for a cover-up? Would they have been allowed to report it if they found one?
That ENTIRE REPORT is one big cover-up. It fails to address one of the most central questions, STILL UNANSWERED:
Where were our elected civilian leaders while critical decisions were needed?