Two days ago, the Las Vegas Review-Journal broke the editorial and media near-silence surrounding the Benghazi attacks, and pointed a finger of blame directly at the Obama administration:
U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and three other Americans died in a well-planned military assault on their diplomatic mission in Benghazi seven weeks ago, the anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. So why are details surfacing, piecemeal, only now?Do, do go and read the whole thing here.
The Obama administration sat by doing nothing for seven hours that night, ignoring calls to dispatch help from our bases in Italy, less than two hours away. It has spent the past seven weeks stretching the story out, engaging in misdirection and deception involving supposed indigenous outrage over an obscure anti-Muslim video, confident that with the aid of a docile press corps this infamous climax to four years of misguided foreign policy can be swept under the rug, at least until after Tuesday's election.
Charles Woods, father of former Navy SEAL and Henderson resident Tyrone Woods, 41, says his son died slumped over his machine gun after he and fellow ex-SEAL Glen Doherty - not the two locals who were the only bodyguards Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration would authorize - held off the enemy for seven hours.
The Obama administration was warned. They received an embassy cable June 25 expressing concern over rising Islamic extremism in Benghazi, noting the black flag of al-Qaida "has been spotted several times flying over government buildings and training facilities." The Obama administration removed a well-armed, 16-member security detail from Libya in August, The Wall Street Journal reported last month, replacing it with a couple of locals. Mr. Stevens sent a cable Aug. 2 requesting 11 additional body guards, noting "Host nation security support is lacking and cannot be depended on," reports Peter Ferrara at Forbes.com. But these requests were denied, officials testified before the House Oversight Committee earlier this month.
Based on documents released by the committee, on the day of the attack the Pentagon dispatched a drone with a video camera so everyone in Washington could see what was happening in real time. The drone documented no crowds protesting any video. But around 4 p.m. Washington received an email from the Benghazi mission saying it was under a military-style attack. The White House, the Pentagon, the State Department and the CIA were able to watch the live video feed. An email sent later that day reported "Ansar al-Sharia claims responsibility for Benghazi attack."
Now tell me: if this were a Republican administration, would this courageous bit of journalism have happened only in a Las Vegas newspaper? Wouldn't the New York Times be carrying even more scathing denunciations of the administration's actions that night and for the weeks following? Wouldn't this editorial have been picked up by blogs and news feeds so that it was at the top of most Internet news services' lists of most-read pieces? Wouldn't the president be dogged on the campaign trail by outspoken journalists demanding the truth about Benghazi? Wouldn't some bright reporter manage to film him or herself asking the potent question, "Mr. President, about the Benghazi attacks, what did you know, and when did you know it?"
I know that journalism standards are in free-fall (well, just read wire news stories and puzzle your way through the grammar). I know that the image of a free press is eroding in a day and age when everybody knows that there is simply no diversity of thought in America's newsrooms, no matter how much diversity of race, gender, sexual orientation etc. there might be. But this is disgraceful. The American news media have proven by their curious silence in the face of one of the most shocking and outrageous news stories of the present day that they are not merely partisan; they are owned. They are the pampered and beribboned lapdogs of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, and will remain so as long as the occupant is someone of whom they approve with the whole hearts and the closed minds of sycophantic suck-ups and obsequious Obamaphiles for whom the president can do no wrong, not even when, in a less than optimal scene unfolding in screaming chaos half the world away, Americans died because no orders were given to come to their aid.