Skip to comments.Liberal Panic Now That Benghazi Fiasco Finally Getting Real Coverage?
Posted on 05/11/2013 9:48:12 PM PDT by Kaslin
here is no escaping the fact that, where Benghazi is concerned, there is blood in the water and the mainstream media has (at long last) picked up the scent. Yesterday, the sharks representing the three major TV networks circled Press Secretary Jay Carney, bombarding him with questions that were uncharacteristically tough.
ABC’s Jonathan Karl, who broke the story that the talking points underwent twelve revisions, had the aspect and attitude of a man scorned and determined to set the record straight as much to clear his own name as to ascertain the truth. When Carney attempted to weasel out of his claim earlier in the week that the White House had merely made minor “stylistic” changes to the talking points, Karl was adamant and unrelenting.
While there are now premature suggestions that impeachment may be in the president’s future, there is no dismissing the fact that this is a major cover-up whose potential for harming administration members present and past (that means you, Hillary!) should not be underestimated. As Mark Steyn reminds us, in January, Clinton “denied ever seeing Ambassador Stevens’s warnings about deteriorating security in Libya on the grounds that ‘1.43 million cables come to my office’ — and she can’t be expected to see all of them, or any,” adding:
Once Ambassador Stevens was in his flag-draped coffin listening to her eulogy for him at Andrews Air Force Base, he was her bestest friend in the world — it was all ‘Chris this’ and ‘Chris that,’ as if they’d known each other since third grade. But up till that point he was just one of 1.43 million close personal friends of Hillary trying in vain to get her ear.
Now we know that at 8 p.m. Eastern time on the last night of Stevens’s life, his deputy in Libya spoke to Secretary Clinton and informed her of the attack in Benghazi and the fact that the ambassador was now missing. An hour later, Gregory Hicks received a call from the then–Libyan prime minister, Abdurrahim el-Keib, informing him that Stevens was dead. Hicks immediately called Washington. It was 9 p.m. Eastern time, or 3 a.m. in Libya. Remember the Clinton presidential team’s most famous campaign ad? About how Hillary would be ready to take that 3 a.m.call? Four years later, the phone rings, and Secretary Clinton’s not there. She doesn’t call Hicks back that evening. Or the following day.
Are murdered ambassadors like those 1.43 million cables she doesn’t read? Just too many of them to keep track of? No. Only six had been killed in the history of the republic — seven, if you include Arnold Raphel, who perished in General Zia’s somewhat mysterious plane crash in Pakistan in 1988. Before that you have to go back to Adolph Dubs, who died during a kidnapping attempt in Kabul in 1979. So we have here a once-in-a-third-of-a-century event. And at 3 a.m. Libyan time on September 12 it’s still unfolding, with its outcome unclear. Hicks is now America’s head man in the country, and the cabinet secretary to whom he reports says, ‘Leave a message after the tone and I’ll get back to you before the end of the week.’ Just to underline the difference here: Libya’s head of government calls Hicks, but nobody who matters in his own government can be bothered to.
That includes Obama, who was off to a big campaign fundraiser in Las Vegas.
Yet, the view from the liberal blogosphere is still “Nothing to see here.” The expectation that the testimony before the House Oversight Committee by three whistleblowers on Wednesday would “break the dam that would lead to President Obama’s eventual downfall?” Pure fantasy. That was how Hayes Brown of ThinkProgress summarized the hearings. If anything, Brown wrote, “these witness [sic] actually served to debunk several theories that the right-wing has pushed on Benghazi, leaving the hearing a fizzle for the GOP.”
Much of his post was devoted to the testimony provided by Gregory Hicks, a Foreign Service Officer and the former Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Libya. Most analysts after the fact found Hicks’s testimony to be among the most riveting and politically toxic to the administration. But not Brown. In his view, Hicks’s account was but a feeble attempt to connect the dots between the White House and the deaths of four Americans in Libya last Sept. 11 collapsed altogether under a withering cross-examination by ranking committee member Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.).
You’d think with Hicks’s evisceration at the hands of an experienced statesman, there would be no need for a follow-up column. Yet on Friday, Brown delivered a second post-mortem, quoting a former staffer under Hicks who called him “the worst manager I’ve ever seen in the Foreign Service.” Another of Hicks’s former underlings is reported to have said, “Literally every single one of us begged for him to be removed from post.”
The question is why bother devoting column inches to defaming a man who has already been discredited — whose testimony, if anything, vindicates the president and his successor, Hillary Clinton? Could all the president’s acolytes have lapsed into denial, the first of the five stages of grief? Or is this just a case of shooting the messenger? We will learn the answer in the weeks and months to come. The Benghazi cover-up is not going away.
And in the beginning I recall Obama referring to Ambassador Stevens as his personal representative in Libya, as tho Stevens was a stand in for the 0ne himself. But that was before he became one in 1.4 million
I’m not getting my hopes up over any of this.
The media has been in the tank for the administration too long for them to change now.
They have no credibility.
Now that the African communist is safely reelected, the Democrat “mainstream” newsrooms are asking how an ambassador and three other Americans, including a couple of heroic SEALS, were left to die in Benghazi.
So now they have to circle the wagons for Hillary.
The Sunday morning pundit shows should be interesting.
One can always hope, our media keeps a small parcel of their traditional role.
I have seen ZERO indication of any such thing though, since 2007.
Not one little bit.
By the way, I have a theory: I think there are some powerful Democrats who simply do not like Hillary Clinton. I also believe the Democrat “mainstream” newsrooms would not be suddenly on this story without the go-ahead - - tacit or not - - from these powerful Democrats.
Hillary isn’t the only Democrat who has eyeballs on 2016.
And I maintain the Chicago mob has ideas about Moochelle.
...both have no credibility
Blood in the water does not interest me.
I want to see those who have purposely dishonored this country with their lies and caused with their stinking cowardice the death of heroes by barbaric savages to be brought to the justice that they deserve.
I’ve no respect for those that did this, and I’ve no respect for anyone who wishes to see this swept away or aids in its being swept away.
I have loathing and contempt for those that have disgraced America.
Queen Hillary has American blood on her hands.
Michelle Robinson Obama is a loser. She has no political cred, though none is really needed to be President.
At cocktail parties in Georgetown and No. VA tonight, I wonder how many times some strutting rooster/hen said, “Wow! We acted like real gerrnalists ...”
Back to business-as-usual Monday morning, however, now that they’ve gotten it out of their systems (Like a colonic): “Mr. President, you sure look dreamy today! Can you forgive us?”
She will have the mmocher base of the Democrat party already in her pocket. Add to that an enthusiastic black / minority vote, women who simply want a woman president, and a slew of morons who, once again, want to vote for "history".
But make no mistake, the main thing is the moochers. Over half the nation is now a pack of moochers who couldn't care less who their politicians are as long as those politicians confiscate from their neighbors and hand over "free stuff" in exchange for votes.
Time for a bystander to call Clinton and Obama “Murderers” when they are out in public.
The Press will eat it up, or not. I remember their Glee when the Iraqi “journalist” threw his shoes at President Bush.
If we haven’t learned from our enemies how the game is played, we will never save this Nation.
Anyone wanting on or off this ping list, please advise.
They'll do it. You know they will.
My concern is that the MSM has been told to join in the coverage, then take control, and then squash the issue.
The NYT will take the lead, do all kinds of investigative reports, and come to the conclusion the there is “no there there,” and resolve Obama, Hillary, and crew.
And what better way for someone like Kerry to get rid of some competition.