Friday, November 2, 2012

Progressives Give Aid and Comfort to Obama's Benghazi Cover Up

I'm not sure who this guy Hayes Brown thinks he's fooling, but it's Think Progress, so clearly he doesn't have the interests of decent Americans in mind. Folks can read it all at the link, a stupid and corrupt cherry-picking of yesterday's news on the CIA in Benghazi, "New Details Discredit Fox News Reports On Benghazi Attacks." (At Memeorandum.)

Frankly, yesterday's reports only raise more questions about the administration's actions on September 11. Jennifer Griffin has a new report out this morning, "Sources, emails point to communication breakdown in Obama administration during Libya attack." And there's video of Griffin's comments this morning here.

Progressives are using the latest news to discredit allegations that the White House didn't respond to requests for assistance. We still don't have enough information to know for sure exactly what requests were honored and by who. The president himself claimed he immediately issued orders that all U.S. personnel be protected, but the White House refuses to answer direct questions about what the orders entailed. Moreover, the latest reports again raise questions of why the White House insisted for weeks that the consulate came under attack "spontaneously." This was not an errant comment but a weeks-long campaign by the administration to deflect attention away from the Oval Office. Ed Morrissey has more on that, "Fox News: Benghazi consulate warned 3 hours before attack of militia gathering arms." And see especially Guy Benson, "Report: Benghazi Consulate Warned of Imminent Terrorist Attack Three Hours Before Raid":
So not only did the administration know within 24 hours that this had been an act of terrorism, they knew within four hours which specific Islamist group was responsible for the raid. (Remember, those August cables mentioned at least ten active jihadist militias in the city). The US staff in Benghazi sent explicit warnings about a lack of security at the consulate in August, as requests for reinforcements were being routinely denied. They also fired off urgent cables mere hours before the assault began, informing Washington that a terrorist attack had been set into motion. Why do these details matter? Because the White House -- the president, the Secretary of State, the UN Ambassador -- continued to insist for days that this 9/11 terrorist attack was connected to (non-existent) spontaneous protests over an obscure online video. Clinton even denounced the video while standing next to the caskets of the fallen upon their return. This was a completely false storyline, pushed for reasons that remain unclear -- although I think the motives are becoming more readily apparent by the day. The president has said that his administration has been fully transparent, updating the public on critical information as it's come in -- even feigning great offense that anyone would suggest otherwise. The flat truth is that his White House has done nothing of the sort.
There's more at the link.

Now it's not just the clowns at Think Progress who're covering for the White House. With few exceptions, the mainstream press has played a low-profile in covering breaking developments on Benghazi. Again, there are a few important updates here and there ---- CBS News yesterday posted a key item at their website yesterday, and Jake Tapper has been doing critical reporting at ABC ---- but for the most part the press has not been keen to keep the story front and center, because it hurts the political chances of their favored candidate.

I'll have more on this. Meanwhile, check NewsBusters, "Bozell Statement: Liberal Media Are Accessories to Benghazi Cover-up":
The liberal "news" media’s refusal to cover this story exposes how corrupt they have become. Four Americans died in Libya in a coordinated terrorist attack on the anniversary of 9/11. The Obama Administration has been caught in a maze of falsehoods. This reeks of a cover-up. This scandal could and would derail the Obama re-election efforts. ABC, CBS, NBC, The Washington Post, and the New York Times are so vested in the re-election of Barack Obama that they are deliberately spiking this huge story. It’s sickening.

How big is this story? Bigger than Watergate. No one was killed in that burglary, and no one covered up the truth about the deaths of four brave Americans.

Now there are rumblings that one or more of these so-called news networks have emails from the National Security Advisor’s office telling a counter-terrorism unit to stand down. If that’s true, they must tell the American people what they know, and how long they’ve known it. And if it isn’t true, then the networks need to say so. Their silence is deafening.