A few days ago I wrote of Benghazi story:
Please tell me that when our drones saw our consulate under sustained attack for seven hours, when we watched while our people were being murdered, that their rescue wasn’t inhibited because some Scheisskopf was too distracted by a contest to make a gutsy call. Please tell me that when Stevens and his team were looking for help, they were not being pushed aside by some Scheisskopf saying, “I can’t pay attention right now; don’t you know there is a parade going on?”
And then, trying to be fair, I wrote:
Was the president lied to?. If so, why? Was someone trying to control his response? If so, shouldn’t some resignations be on his desk?
There should be resignations because of all the lying, and the cover-ups, not because of the incompetence. People are sometimes caught short; they panic and respond poorly. That’s human. It may not be “optimal” in a president, or a Secretary of State, but freezing is a thing that happens.
The lying though, the bare-faced lying to the American people by all parties involved–Jay Carney, Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice and yes, the president himself, who even lied to the United Nations two weeks later–needs to be accounted for.
— Who in the administration decided that they would blame a planned attack on a video no one had seen or heard of? Was it Hillary? She was making a lot of noise about the “disgusting and reprehensible” video. Was it Obama?
— Was someone in his inner circle–perhaps Axelrod or Jarrett–responsible for that convoluted lie and the subsequent arrest of the extremely untalented filmmaker (who, by the way is still in jail and whose situation won’t be addressed until three days after the election).
— Who decided that it was better to lie to the nation, and the world, that on the anniversary of a momentous terror attack, it was a little-seen video that caused death and mayhem, rather than the ongoing aggression of known terrorists?
— Who thought reality was a little too costly during an election season and a false narrative that also served to make free speech seem like something the world could no longer afford–a heinous idea that some members of the press were already–eagerly and reliably–beginning to promote?
Who made that “gutsy call”?
Two hours into the Benghazi attack that claimed the life of Ambassador Chris Stevens and others the White House knew what was going on.
Even worse, they had troops an hour away, but they did not use them to mount a rescue of our personnel.
Last night, on twitter, I saw members of the press–not bloggers, not new media folk in pajamas but members of the mainstream press, writers from the NY Times and elsewhere, completely ignore breaking news of these emails and the utter collapse of the president’s preferred narrative; they chose to pretend that this story did not exist.
They decided, instead, to expend their energies in an attempt o make ideological hay out of a politician’s clumsy, ill-advised attempt to introduce theological ideas into the public arena. They were going for strident bumper-sticker speech, which is much less threatening, and challenging, than contemplating the age-old question (Book of Job, anyone? Crucifix, anyone?) of whether God sometimes allows evil to happen so that something great may later come of it.
It’s actually a very broad-minded question, and an invitation to talk and think about things larger than ourselves and our prideful ideas. Which is why it must be derided as a stupid, ignorant and previously-unheard-of piece of woman-hating misogyny. The narrowness of ideology and political correctness will not allow deviation from the bumperstickers. Even a couple of my more-progressive friends are emailing appalled notes that so many in the press are so willing to immediately spin or squelch what does not fit the narrative. It’s Pravda-creepy.
Not all of the press were pretending this was a real threat to the nation, of course. Some of them were more interested in the sleaze-manufacturing of Gloria Allred (and, peripherally, Donald Trump).
And so media silence on the Benghazi story and these emails appears to be the order of the day:
Obama campaign spokeswoman Jen Psaki dismissed the significance of official government e-mails indicating that an extremist group took credit for the Benghazi attacks just two hours after they took place, charging that the messages were merely “an assertion made on an assertion made on a social media site.”
I guess if I were a WH reporter, I’d ask, “wait, wasn’t blaming the video for Christ Stevens’ death “an assertion made on an assertion…made somewhere in the administration?”
The real threat to the nation? Our mainstream press. The media know these emails destroy the narrative and raise important questions. They don’t want them answered, at least not before the election. Likely not after, either. Just keep tap-dancing. Run out the clock.
Just get Obama re-elected and then there’s nothing to account for, nobody to account to, right?
And to that end, the egregious Harvey Weinstein is recutting his “we killed bin Laden” film to make Obama more prominent before he releases his propaganda a few days before the “monitored” election.
He is, of course, a filmmaker; in America he is free to say anything he wants in his film, without fear of reprisal or arrest. For now. Some speech, some propaganda, is freer than others.
And by the way, the kill-lists…will continue
At this point, nothing would surprise me