Accessories to a Cover-up
“Anytime a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans who were serving our country get killed, we have to figure out what happened and fix it, but I do take offense with some suggestion that in any way, we haven’t tried to make sure that the American people knew as the information was coming in what we believed.” Barack Obama, Monday, October 29, 2012 on the Morning Joe show
Wow, he’s going to “take offense.” I have to wonder what sort reaction it might elicit from the president when he takes offense. Perhaps he’ll go-out and organize a community or something. I really do have to wonder, because watching a terrorist attack in real-time which killed our ambassador and three other Americans apparently didn’t move him to do much.
The only thing more absurd than the Obama Administration’s blatant deceit about Benghazi is the refusal of the media to pay any attention to a scandal and a full-blown cover-up. John Hinderaker over at Powerline does a tremendous job reminding us about how The New York Times conducted their own private witch-hunt leading up to the 2004 election, doing their best to try to generate a scandal to pin on the Bush Administration. You all remember Al QaQaa, right? Didn’t think so. Nobody died, there was no battle, no terrorists, not even a controversy. But that didn’t stop The Times from breathlessly spending ten days immediately before the election accusing the administration of incompetence and a cover-up over, wait for it… munitions supposedly missing from an ammo dump.
With Benghazi, we have dead Americans. That alone should merit attention. Then, we have the Obama Administration’s strenuous efforts to convince us it was all due to an Internet movie trailer, a clear lie that would generate calls for investigations and weeks of ceaseless media coverage all by itself, if only the occupant of the White House had an (R) after his name. But it gets better. We then learned that there were multiple requests for increased security in the months preceding the attack, which were all denied. Then came the revelation that there were calls for help during the attack, which went unanswered. Still the major media organs could not bestir themselves. And now we know there were military assets in the region, which could have been on-site in an hour or less, which were told by someone to stand-down, and reports that the president himself was among those watching the attack unfold in real time. Yet The New York Times, which fell all over itself eight years ago when they accused the Bush Administration of covering-up missing munitions that might or might not have been removed from an ammo dump does not consider this story worth their time. Un-flipping-believable.
This is a cover-up. And media outlets like the New York Times, who likes to call itself the Paper of Record, have gleefully abandoned any last semblance of credibility they might have had remaining. They can no longer call themselves watchdogs, protecting the public interest, they have effectively declared themselves an official organ of the Democrat Party, devoted to nothing less than distributing Party-approved propaganda.
Obama says we need to figure out what happened and fix it. Well Mr. President, I think we have already figured-out what’s wrong, and we will be fixing it on November 6th.
Latest posts by Greg Conterio (see all)
- Donald Trump brings us “Birthers 2.0, the Sequel” - August 21, 2015
- Conservatives Need to Know: Ted Cruz IS Eligible to Run for President in 2016 - March 23, 2015
- How Netanyahu’s Win May Have Made Impeachment of Obama Possible - March 18, 2015