"What'cha gonna do, Jay?"
Welcome to the party, mainstream news media. As ABC breaks the leak of the e-mails that show that 12 revisions were made to the report that UN Ambassador Susan Rice would deliver to the news channels 5 days after the Benghazi attack. And in the middle is poor Jay Carney, who has to dutifully go out day after day and peddle the lies of President Obama and Hillary Clinton.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/10/white-house-scrambles-to-contain-benghazi-gate-fallout/
Today, one of my friends, a liberal listener to NPR, told me she was shocked at what she heard this morning on the news. This is so symptomatic of what the mainstream news media has done to this country. For months, only Fox News, talk radio, and conservative blogs have been doing the news the entire news media should have been doing all along. Finally, ABC gets a scoop and "Good Morning America" reports on it. Now people who have never heard the details about Benghazi are hearing about it.
And poor little Jay Carney, who knows much better, still walks out in front of the White House Press Corps and repeats the administration's lies. And still, the Democrats in the Senate and House defend the administration and try to discredit the brave whistle blowers who experienced the Benghazi event first-hand and have come forward to tell their stories.
I was living in the Washington DC area during much of the Watergate hearings and investigation. I didn't want to believe the accusations against Nixon and felt that much of the scandal and the hearings was a witch hunt against a president whom the liberals hated with a passion. Ultimately, it turned out that the witch was there, and that Nixon was involved in the cover up. Finally, Barry Goldwater led a delegation down to the White House to tell Nixon that they no longer could support him now that a smoking gun tape had come out. Richard Nixon deserved to lose his presidency because he abused his powers.
This is worse than Watergate because it involves the deaths of 4 US officials who never should have died. When will the Democratic leadership make that walk to the White House? They probably never will.
6 comments:
Yes, four Americans died. The attack in Benghazi was swift and well-planned. By the time helicopters with assault troops could have arrived, it was all over. That's how jihad works. Yes, the government tried to put this incident in the best possible light because the U.S. had been trying to establish ties with Libya, which was and still is ruled by numerous vigilante militias (some of whom are attacking one another). The alternative would be to make inflammatory remarks that would have had people in Washington drumming for war. That, in deed, would have caused more lives lost. Sometimes in politics, all alternatives stink, and one has to chose the alternative that stinks less than the others.
ChrisLA,
With all due respect, Roosevelt could have attributed the attack at Pearl harbor to the Blue Angels so as not to inflame Americans to beat the drums for war.
This is worse than Watergate because it involves the deaths of 4 US officials who never should have died.
Gary, you are absolutely delusional in your pathetic desire that SOMETHING will morph into a scandal equal to Watergate, perhaps because you despise Barack Obama as much as some other people despised Richard Nixon.
This is not a criminal act that CAUSED the four deaths. This is, at worst, a bit of perjury AFTER THE FACT about exactly what sort of hostile actions by forces well outside of American jurisdiction caused the four deaths.
Watergate was about a felony committed at the direction of the President of the United States. No American committed a felony in Benghazi, or in Washington of a nature that caused the four deaths.
Also, you haven't even proven perjury, just poor judgement and premature speculation in the immediate aftermath of a moving situation.
You ARE desperate, aren't you?
Note: Nobody in the state department suggested that an American military unit perpetrated the attack on Benghazi. Your desperation can often be measured by the inaptness and ineptness of your proffered analogies.
You are wrong, Siarlys. When ABC starts grabbing leaks and reporting on the cracks are in the wall.
I specified that it was the fault of the DOS they ignored pleas for more security in the months before the attack, which they tried to cover up. I also specified that during the attack, it was only the two seals killed at the annex in the second part hours later that could have been prevented but for the orders to stand down, which were also covered up. I finally stated that the entire post-attack action by our govt has been a cover up.
Are you not affected by the
testimony of the three whistle blowers? I guess a little because now you are conceding "a bit of perjury after the fact...".
And that final note is not MY act of desperation to make an argument, but your own. Go back over that exchange about blaming other parties and my quip about the Blue Angels and tell me who is desperate to make a point.
Is a "bit of perjury" anything like being a "little bit pregnant"?? Seems to me that either you is or you ain't.
I would note that it appears to me to be a little difficult to commit perjury "before the fact". I am unable to think of any perjury that is "after the fact", although there may be some somewhere. In any event, as far as I can tell, under the law perjury is perjury, or at least should be, whenever it occurs.
And while we shamefully know that Nixon was indeed up to his neck in Watergate, we do not yet know how high up in the administration this boondoggle went. Possibly no higher than Hillary, but probably higher (a la the budding IRS scandal??).
Given the extremely close relationship between Obama and Susan Rice, a key player, it is certainly not mere conjecture/speculation, and you don't have to be paranoid, to suspect Obama involvement.
Gary manages to offer a blustering response without offering one new fact. Street corner hustlers caught red-handed pull off better displays of fake moral indignation.
Post a Comment