Hillary suddenly getting the giddy feeling once again.
Just watch, Benghazi will become the new ‘birther’ smear for the Democrats in the upcoming elections in 2016.
The mere fact that these family ‘dynasties’ are continuously promoted as ”the only ones” -out of a population of a +300 million population- best able to run the country, should repel even the least skeptical of voters. It’s sick, especially when you consider that an obscure, one time 2yr congressman from Illinois, Abraham Lincoln, was elected in 1860, and became the most popular president in US history outside of George Washington, the father of the country.
NOTE: Time to reject these rejects that the political/fake media/crony (welfare) business establishment tries to foist on the country time and again. Just say no to their false dichotomy.
HOW MEDIA MATTERS MAY SAVE HILLARY FROM BENGHAZI
Last week, the media went apoplectic after a 60 Minutes report on the terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012, turned out to be mistaken. Much of the report was based on the testimony of one Dylan Davies, a security contractor who said that he had climbed over the wall of the consulate in Benghazi and seen the body of Ambassador Chris Stevens. It turned out that Davies was lying, and 60 Minutes was fooled.
Media Matters, which uncovered the lie, promptly declared victory in its war on behalf of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, with founder David Brock appearing on CNN’s Reliable Sources to proclaim that he was right all along: Benghazi as a whole narrative was a “hoax.” Brock stated:
Everybody who’s followed this story for the past thirteen months knows that the entire scandal is a hoax. The only reason the story exists is partisan politics. Republicans trying to sabotage health care and prevent Hillary Clinton from running for president.
Of course, this is nonsense. But it is also convenient cover for a media looking to ignore Benghazi for as long as possible. The media coverage of Benghazi was abysmal during the initial events of September 2012 and the following weeks leading up to the election. The media focused less on the security failings of the administration and more on the botched public relations campaign of Obama opponent Mitt Romney. Questions about the nature of the administration’s response, including the whereabouts of President Obama during that time, went and remain unanswered. The media refused to acknowledge for weeks at a time that the Obama administration had lied about the motivations behind the Benghazi attacks.
CBS News actively covered up the fact that President Obama refused to call Benghazi terrorism the day after the events in an interview with Steve Kroft, and only released that footage nearly two months later. Candy Crowley of CNN wrongly interjected on behalf of President Obama during the third presidential debate that Obama had in fact called Benghazi an act of terror. Sheryl Attkisson, the CBS News reporter doing investigative work, cameunder assault from within her own company. Even The New York Times’ public editor, Margaret Sullivan, admitted that the media downplayed the Benghazi attacks in order to rip Romney:
I agree that The Times seemed to play down the story originally, placing it inside the paper and emphasizing the second-day angle of the [embassy] apology rather than the misconduct itself….Many on the right – as noted last week in my blog posts about Benghazi – do not think they can get a fair shake from The Times. This coverage won’t do anything to dispel that belief.
Now, finally, a year later, 60 Minutes covered Benghazi, and got it wrong with one of their sources. Media Matters’ uncovering of that fact shouldn’t be a negative. But it has become a rallying cry for those, including Media Matters, who say that the entirety of the Benghazi story was nonsensical – a pitch Media Matters has been making consistently since its weak ebook, The Benghazi Hoax, by Brock and Ari Rabin-Havt, came out on October 16.
No, it was not a hoax, it was massive dereliction of duty by the commander in chief.