Tuesday, October 30, 2012

President Obama and the Benghazi Incident

There has been an enormous amount of interest paid to the the murder of our ambassador in Libya and how it played out last month.  I should say, at least an enormous of amount of interest paid by Fox !  The rest of the media seems detached from the entire thing, treating it like a curiosity more than a serious news story.  Why?

If you're not familiar, in a nutshell, what happened was this;  The week our ambassador to Libya and the three other men were killed on Sept. 11, 2012 it would appear that a lot more was known by the President and the state department than they cared to admit.   Emails leaked from someone to Reuters (not Fox !) showed that it was already clear the day of the attack (clear to the state department - which logically would clue in the White House) that this was a terrorist attack.  Rather than reveal the truth of the situation, The White House took the opportunity offered by the flair-up of riots and protests in Cairo, Egypt to imply that this wasn't a terrorist attack but another of the same empty-headed riots over some absurd video on You Tube.  They went so far as to have the President's press secretary announce that "there was no evidence this was a terrorist attack".  The President's ambassador to the UN clarified to all the Sunday morning news programs;  "We have no evidence that this was a terrorist attack".  The President himself spoke on late night talk shows and even before the United Nations., essentially the same story.  Not for a couple of weeks were they honest about the situation because it was becoming embarrassingly obvious that it was NOT a random riot over a video.  

So, the interest in this is because it looks like the President and the state department were caught in a lie.  Not just one lie, but a whole series of lies.   Evidently they thought if they told the lie over and over often enough it would morph into the truth.   Now that the world knows it was an organized terrorist attack, the President and all his minions are of the attitude that they "just didn't know".  The President went so far as to express in his second debate with Mitt Romney that he DID call it a terrorist attack the day after the murders;  Sept. 12.  The reality is he referred to the horror of terrorism in reference to Sept. 11, 2001 not the events of the day preceding.  I guess he has taken lessons from his friend President Clinton that you can confuse enough people with word play and answers such as "It depends on what your definition of "is" is."  In this case, "I spoke the truth but you didn't know it at the time... only I knew it".  (Candy Crawford of CNN knew it too as she referred to it at the debate- undercutting Romney's line of questioning- I guess she read the President's mind- remarkable !).

Although Fox can be ridiculously slanted, this time this Independent (and I would imagine a lot of others) wants answers just as much as the Republicans that sit every night with rapt attention watching Bill O'Reilly and Shawn Hannity.  What was known by the President, the Secretary of State, the CIA and the FBI the week after the assassination and why weren't we told the truth?

Shame on the mainstream media for letting this one go, and shame on the President and all those that report to him for feeling entitled to not only withhold the truth but also to ignore repeated requests to ask questions about the incident.   Shame on Candy Crawford for undercutting Mitt Romney when he was insisting on the truth from the President.  With the exception of Fox, the major networks are not doing their job to find the truth no matter the possible political consequences of what they discover.  Even if it means sinking the President's chances for re-election.  The truth is the truth., blind folded, balanced and just.

In My Humble Opinion,

Chuck Marshall

No comments: