Media cooperating with Benghazi cover-up?

posted at 1:31 pm on October 30, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

There has been a curious lack of curiosity among the media about the chain of events that left an American consulate largely undefended in a terrorist attack, resulting in the death of four Americans, despite a number of military resources at hand.  Does this equate to a cover-up by the national media, or at least cooperation on their part with the Obama administration to avoid answering questions about it?

Deborah Saunders, a columnist for the San Francisco Chronicle, finds the lack of interest in this story very, er, interesting.  She argues that this isn’t a total media blackout by any means, but implies that the aversion to this story has a lot to do with the party affiliation of the President:

Some readers tell me that they see The Chronicle’s failure to run a rash of front-page stories as proof of bias. They have a point, but they fail to appreciate the local emphasis in today’s front-page placement, especially during a presidential election and World Series, which the Giants, incidentally, won 4-zip.

Most important is the resources issue. Most dailies don’t have foreign bureaus or reporters with the sources needed to break this type of story. “I don’t think there’s a bias issue, but we do have to rely on our primary news services,” Chronicle Editor Ward H. Bushee told me.

That doesn’t let the media off the hook. Saunders notes some very troubling information that has come to light in the last few days — through some good work at Fox News, among others — but which haven’t prompted much coverage or follow-up elsewhere.  And if this had happened in a Republican administration, Saunders argues, we’d be seeing a much different response from the media:

On Friday, correspondent Jennifer Griffin reported that sources told her that a CIA team, including Tyrone Woods who also died in Benghazi, had requested military backup during the attack but was told to “stand down.” The CIA dismissed the story as “inaccurate.”

A drone was deployed over Benghazi during an attack that lasted about seven hours. Yet, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told reporters that he hadn’t known enough about what was happening in real time to authorize a military rescue.

The Chronicle’s most recent story on Benghazi ran on Oct. 25. It reported that on Sept. 11, the State Department e-mailed the White House that Ansar al-Shariah had claimed responsibility for the attack. That would be shortly after 6 p.m. Eastern time. What did Obama know that night, when did he know it and what did he do about it? Ditto Langley and the Pentagon.

Now ask yourself this: If George W. Bush were president, and the press didn’t know what he did on the evening of the Benghazi attack, do you think there would be the same focus in the media? I think we know the answer.

Michael Ramirez offers his Pulitzer Prize-winning perspective at Investors Business Daily on the media response:

Also, be sure to check out Ramirez’ terrific collection of his works: Everyone Has the Right to My Opinion, which covers the entire breadth of Ramirez’ career, and it gives fascinating look at political history.  Read my review here, and watch my interviews with Ramirez here and here.  And don’t forget to check out the entire Investors.com site, which has now incorporated all of the former IBD Editorials, while individual investors still exist.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Always with the word games…aka deflection.

verbaluce on October 30, 2012 at 5:27 PM</blockquote

Yes, you are, aren't you?

It was a simple question requiring a simple yes or no answer. Why do you always seem to have such a problem with that?

Flora Duh on October 30, 2012 at 5:31 PM

Always with the word games…aka deflection.
 
verbaluce on October 30, 2012 at 5:27 PM

 
Well played.

rogerb on October 30, 2012 at 5:31 PM

One week to Chick-Fil-A Day…

Galtian on October 30, 2012 at 2:18 PM

Thanks, you just gave me a good idea. Next Tuesday, I am going to make it a “twofer” – vote for Mitt and then go eat at Chick-Fil-A.

Brat on October 30, 2012 at 5:33 PM

itsspideyman on October 30, 2012 at 3:46 PM

verbaluce, we here have serious concerns when 4 Americans end up dead.
Who wouldn’t?
But that’s not really what’s being expressed here.

Wild accusation? They are all we have when the administration offers no valid explanation.

No. You’ve just bought into a b.s. narrative constructed to hurt Obama at the polls. There’s a formula at play – kind of matches up with the F&F conspiracies…following a tragic event in which Americans die – spin that event to lay culpability/devious shenanigans at the feet of Obama or someone high up in his admin – seek bereaved family members and exploit their grief – await Fox News 24/7 obsession – rinse/repeat.
(To be sure, you personally may indeed have actual concern here and a genuine interest in avoiding such tragedies in the future.)


Can you offer an explanation for what happened? Without changing the subject?

The consulate came under attack. I welcome a full investigation that has as it’s objective determining the facts with a view that something like his might not be repeated.
That said, it’s naive to think dangerous missions in dangerous places do not pose risks. For that reason these men died heroes – as they were aware of these risks, yet still took on these missions.
Awful to see those deaths used as political pawns.


We’re waiting.

Wait over.

itsspideyman on October 30, 2012 at 3:46 PM

verbaluce on October 30, 2012 at 5:47 PM

It was a simple question requiring a simple yes or no answer. Why do you always seem to have such a problem with that?

Flora Duh on October 30, 2012 at 5:31 PM

You can’t be serious.

You asked me these 2 questions:

You do know the definition of the word “or” don’t you?
Who’s the one making “wild accusations” now verbaluce?

You’re being more than a tad disingenuous here….

verbaluce on October 30, 2012 at 5:54 PM

Bmore on October 30, 2012 at 3:54 PM

You seem to be wanting know what I think/feel about Oliver Stone criticizing Obama…right?
Well, I haven’t seen too much of it – and the guy is kinda of a nut – but it seems he’s upset that Obama wasn’t left-wing enough.
Do you share those concerns?
I find Stone to be a bit extreme – and I think it’s naive and unrealistic to think Obama was going to govern like that.
But maybe Oliver needs to spend more time here so he can learn what a raging socialist Obama is. :)

Camille you’ll need to link.
I’m a fan of her writing…and think she’s a nut too.

verbaluce on October 30, 2012 at 6:05 PM

verbaluce on October 30, 2012 at 5:47 PM

That’s it?

That’s all?

You had one factual sentence:

“The consulate came under attack.”

Nothing else?

Go sit in a corner while the adult’s discuss this.

itsspideyman on October 30, 2012 at 6:13 PM

Keep up the pressure…

… the “Press” wanted ‘Fast and Furious’ to go away, too.

Seven Percent Solution on October 30, 2012 at 6:18 PM

You won’t hear one more word about this until after the election, if ever.

WisCon on October 30, 2012 at 6:37 PM

GW would have been strung up by now *dog whistle*

Slade73 on October 30, 2012 at 6:38 PM

I’m sure a newer version of the JournoList is alive and kicking. The news media is way too coordinated during this campaign with their headlines, coverage, and avoidance coverage.

jediwebdude on October 30, 2012 at 6:43 PM

kingsjester ‏@kingsjester1
“We leave nobody behind.” – Obama 10/30/12 The 4 brave Americans murdered by Muslim Terrorists in Benghazi remain unavailable for comment.

kingsjester on October 30, 2012 at 6:44 PM

Hillary Captured by Mali Terrorists? Imossibkle? Probably, but…

Okay, now I got it. I hero of mine, Nonie Darwish, had already cast a jaundiced eye on President Obama’s loyalty. Now she says that a snippet of a video from the beginning of the Benghazi attack shows the “terrorists” coming in through the conjectured unlocked front gate and the guards lowering their weapons at them, at which point one man says, “Don’t shoot, don’t shoot. Morsi sent us!”

Mrs. Darwish concluded that President Morsi of Egypt, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, (of which Hillary Clinton’s Deputy Chief of Staff and personal assistant, Huma Abedin, is also member emeritus) who has called for the release from US custody of Omar Abdel-Rahman, the so-called Blind Sheik, as a gesture of good will, sent the terrorist-affiliated attackers to capture Ambassador Stevens and hold him hostage for the release of the Blind Sheik.

Now we see why Ansar al Sharia took responsibility only hours into the attack. The only mistake was that Stevens’ was injured worse that they had anticipated. Morsi approved a state abduction identical to what would have been accomplished in Pakistan if bin Laden had been captured rather than killed. And as it happened Stevens was killed rather than captured as well. But this explains why those who pulled Stevens’ half-dead body out of the consulate were praising Allah that he was still alive: they were not friendlies, they were hostage takers, and a dead hostage is no hostage at all.

This is why Libya President Mohamed El-Magariaf said that this was a “preplanned” attack conducted by foreigners that entered Libya weeks before from countries including Algeria and Mali. How he could know this so quickly was hard to fathom. One knew from the start that El-Magariaf’s description of the attack was, in some way, ultimately self-serving. It turns out, he was just explaining what was common knowledge within his circle.

That is why Obama called for US agents at the scene to stand down: it was all a charade; the objective was to only capture Stevens, not to kill him. That is why we haven’t gotten an October surprise yet: Stevens was accidentally killed and so there is no hostage to have returned to victorious praise in the last weeks before the election. (The only course left for an October Surprise is to attack Steven’s supposed murderers in the week before the election.)

This is why the post-attack narrative was confused for a couple of days: the outcome was not the pre-scripted one. No one was supposed to be looking at the delay in sending military assistance to a murdered amabassador, they were all supposed to be watching breathlessly for the tense negotiations for the ambassador’s release.

This is why the film was cast as the cause: it was the preplanned flashpoint to remove blame from both Morsi and his Obama administration co-conspirators. This is why Nakoula is held in prison incommunicado: so that he cannot muddy the new narrative.

If Stevens had just had the gumption to man up and live long enough to be ransomed home, the sun would be shining today. Obama was just waiting for a call from Morsi to heroically mediate Stevens/Abdel-Rahman exchange. And it was just a matter of time before the abduction would be announced and all parties would stand down.

Both Obama and Morsi would have been heroes to both the Western world and the Muslim world. (Don’t think Hillary was not a willing co-conspirator in all this. It was part of her deal with Obama when she took office: play the game with me and I’ll support your Presidential bid in 2016. And, of course, Huma approved, too.) But Stevens blew it. Who gave him permission to “stand down”?

Next? Capture Hillary in Mali in return for the Blind Sheik.

flicker on October 30, 2012 at 7:01 PM

I’m a fan of her writing…and think she’s a nut too.

verbaluce on October 30, 2012 at 6:05 PM

Really, she is one of my favorite lib reads. One of two things occur to me at this point. You must be so far left that you are scratching at the cliffs edge to hold on. Or you are Oliver Stone. Sorry I asked. Lazy like water you are.

Bmore on October 30, 2012 at 7:10 PM

Oh, and you are really freaking slow at responding. So you are also, Slow.

Bmore on October 30, 2012 at 7:11 PM

You’re being more than a tad disingenuous here….

verbaluce on October 30, 2012 at 5:54 PM

Ha!!! Too funny, must copy this one to the clipboard. Lol!

Bmore on October 30, 2012 at 7:12 PM

Always with the word games…aka deflection.

verbaluce on October 30, 2012 at 5:27 PM

Well played.

rogerb on October 30, 2012 at 5:31 PM

; )

Bmore on October 30, 2012 at 7:13 PM

Yes, I imagine if George W. Bush was President and Benghazi happened as under Obama…

The media would be storming the castle and beating the drum 24/7… guaranteed…

Then I think, if “W” had been President, reinforcements would have been sent in… absolutely…

Khun Joe on October 30, 2012 at 7:23 PM

flicker on October 30, 2012 at 7:01 PM

That is a very interesting theory. There is something being hidden. This makes as much sense as anything the Obama administration has put forth.

talkingpoints on October 30, 2012 at 7:42 PM

If this were Bush, there would be a feeding frenzy. SInce Obama was elected, the press has developed a case of anorexia.

bflat879 on October 30, 2012 at 7:50 PM

verbaluce

Your lot would be howling for Dubya’s head over this – and you’d be right.

So remove your lips from Obama’s private parts, wipe your chin, and pretend you’re not a hypocritical sack of excrement for a little while – if you can.

Midas on October 30, 2012 at 8:05 PM

Ramirez is the BEST!

BoxHead1 on October 30, 2012 at 8:13 PM

The British pulled their diplomatic crew out of Benghazi for their own protection. What’s so hard about that?

Answer – Nothing, unless you don’t want to give the impression that your Libya policy is failing.

I predict history is going to be very harsh to Obama.

Buck Turgidson on October 30, 2012 at 8:17 PM

I’m a fan of her writing…and think she’s a nut too.
verbaluce on October 30, 2012 at 6:05 PM
Really, she is one of my favorite lib reads. One of two things occur to me at this point. You must be so far left that you are scratching at the cliffs edge to hold on. Or you are Oliver Stone. Sorry I asked. Lazy like water you are.
Bmore on October 30, 2012 at 7:10 PM

Camille Paglia is of your favorite “lib reads”
Man…seems I gave you way to much credit here.
Your ignorance deserves to be ignored.

verbaluce on October 30, 2012 at 8:40 PM

verbaluce on October 30, 2012 at 5:47 PM
That’s it?
That’s all?
You had one factual sentence:
“The consulate came under attack.”
Nothing else?
Go sit in a corner while the adult’s discuss this.
itsspideyman on October 30, 2012 at 6:13 PM

Ha. Sure…’the adults’.
Look…you don’t need any explanations because you ‘know’ just what happpened.
But the fact is you’re not curious and you don’t really have any questions.
You have a fully formed opinion about Obama. That’s what you showed up with and that’s what you will leave with.
Vote for Romney, but save us the sanctimony.

verbaluce on October 30, 2012 at 8:57 PM

o/t

“Dont know if you’ve heard, but ‘Don’t Ask-Don’t Tell’ is back. It’s Obama’s new policy on Benghazi–Don’t Ask me and I won’t tell you.”

- Jay Leno

Resist We Much on October 30, 2012 at 9:24 PM

That is a very interesting theory. There is something being hidden. This makes as much sense as anything the Obama administration has put forth.

talkingpoints on October 30, 2012 at 7:42 PM

Thanks. It seems the simplest single answer to how come the consulate security was deliberately pulled out, why Stevens was chosen to be taken in the first place, and why the Obama administration is spinning every yarn they can think of.

What I don’t see is any coherent story that the administration has put forth. All I get is that the security was low because it was the right thing to do. The video caused a riot in Egypt that caused a preplanned terrorist attack in Libya. There was no intelligence coming in throught he fog of war. Panetta says that policy is not to send troops into harms way. CIA denies ordering anyone to standing down. Nakoula will be prosecuted.

What we hear otherwise is that there were two drones overhead and direct contemporaneous requests for help from beseiged CIA agents coming straight to the Situation Room. The President either was or was not in the Situation Room. The President either was or was not aware of the battle as it was being waged. The President either called or did not call for the consulate staff to get military protection. General Carter Ham, commander of AFRICOM, either was or was not about to send resue forces anyway, and subsequently was or was not relieved of command.

flicker on October 30, 2012 at 9:57 PM

There’s a formula at play – kind of matches up with the F&F conspiracies…following a tragic event in which Americans die – spin that event to lay culpability/devious shenanigans at the feet of Obama or someone high up in his admin – seek bereaved family members and exploit their grief – await Fox News 24/7 obsession – rinse/repeat.

verbaluce on October 30, 2012 at 5:47 PM

I guess David Ignatius, a foreign affairs writer for the Washington Post must await FOX News 24/7 obsession also.

Lingering questions about Benghazi

The attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi has become a political football in the presidential campaign, with all the grandstanding and misinformation that entails. But Fox News has raised some questions about the attack that deserve a clearer answer from the Obama administration.

Flora Duh on October 30, 2012 at 9:59 PM

Hannity said tonight on TV there are three (3) separate tapes and they are “devastating”. One is the drone video and also audio of the communications.

luckybogey on October 30, 2012 at 10:11 PM

Both Obama and Morsi would have been heroes to both the Western world and the Muslim world. (Don’t think Hillary was not a willing co-conspirator in all this. It was part of her deal with Obama when she took office: play the game with me and I’ll support your Presidential bid in 2016.
flicker on October 30, 2012 at 7:01 PM

Absolutely Brilliant! That’s the missing link I’ve been looking for! Thank you very much Nonie Darwish & flicker.

Now it makes complete sense. Its not just “an interesting theory.”

Liam1304 on October 31, 2012 at 12:28 AM

Media cooperating with Benghazi cover-up?

Why does this sentence end with a question mark?

Cylor on October 31, 2012 at 2:50 AM

As a way of supporting the Navy Seals while also memorializing Andrew Breitbart, consider posting the following link on your Facebook page. Be sure to read the article in this link.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/10/30/Facebook-Censors-Navy-SEALS-To-Protect-Obama-on-Benghazi-Gate

If you don’t have a Facebook page, the ultimate protest would be to set one up, post this link, and when your post gets censored, close out your Facebook account.

Sweet_Thang on October 31, 2012 at 10:48 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3