Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

To: raccoonradio

KUHNER doing post debate analysis tonite immediately after the debate on RKO.

8 posted on 10/22/2012 1:35:29 PM PDT by rockabyebaby (We are sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo screwed!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: rockabyebaby; Andonius_99; Andy'smom; Antique Gal; Big Guy and Rusty 99; bitt; Barset; ...

Tue column ping

Benghazi swept under rug
By Howie Carr | Tuesday, October 23, 2012 |

Photo by AP
What’s the difference between Watergate and Benghazi?

Nobody died at Watergate.

Yet on the eve of last night’s third and final presidential debate, the mainstream media were practically unanimous in their verdict on Benghazi.

Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.

Amazing, these are the same rumpswabs and bumkissers who a few years back were in high dudgeon about Valerie Plame — remember Valerie Plame? She was outed as a CIA agent of sorts (she’d worked in Paris, and her cover was a journalist — sounds real dangerous, doesn’t it?). Oh my God, this was the biggest scandal since ... Watergate.

A constitutional crisis is what Valerie Plame was. Just ask any of the same Ivy League pukes who were on television Sunday, trying to sweep the Benghazi massacre under the rug.

A New York Times [NYT] reporter named Helene Cooper pooh-poohed the four murders (lynchings, actually) as “peripheral to what’s going on now.”

Only because Brian Ross couldn’t tie the al-Qaeda cell in Benghazi to the Tea Party, right Helene?

Then there was Joe Klein of Time magazine. He said Benghazi “has been like the October mirage — it really isn’t an issue.”

President Obama couldn’t agree more. After all, he flew off to Las Vegas for a fundraiser as soon as he heard about the four deaths.

There’s a video on YouTube right now of a 93-year-old World War II veteran in a hospital bed, with his daughter helping him cast what will likely be his last presidential ballot. It’s very popular — viral, as they say.

You know what I’d love to see next on YouTube — these “reporters” for dying rags like the Times and Time writing their final stories about the presidential elections, because I have a feeling their agit-prop sheets are going to be as defunct as that WWII veteran (or Newsweek) four years from now.

Naturally, the Times has decided that any news about Benghazi is not “fit to print.” Until yesterday, when the two Democrats in last night’s debate — Obama and Bob Schieffer — needed some ammo against reality to use against Romney.

So the Times has invented a new narrative, to explain why U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice went on five different chattering-skull shows Sept. 16 to blame the al-Qaeda attacks on the “disgusting and reprehensible” video that no one had ever seen.

Even as Rice was not telling the truth, the Times reported, “Intelligence analysts suspected that the explanation was outdated.”

In other words, she wasn’t lying. She was using “outdated” information.

Later that same all-Rice, all-the-time Sunday, the intel people “were already sifting through new field reports that seemed to contradict the initial assessment.”

You don’t say!

Article URL:

9 posted on 10/23/2012 7:21:53 AM PDT by raccoonradio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson