Benghazi and Obama: The Media Is Trying to Shore up This Desperate Administration

Christopher Stevens: Obama lied; he died

Here’s one thing we can be sure of about the Benghazi affair: almost everything we’ve been told since by the mainstream media is a lie, invariably one designed to shore up the creaky and desperate Obama administration.

Consider how quickly the story was spun by Obama’s amen corner in the liberal MSM. It should, according to any objective news sense, have been a shocking tale of how a woefully unprotected ambassador was murdered in cold blood by Al Qaeda affiliates. Instead, it almost immediately became – of all things – an excuse to demonstrate why Mitt Romney was unfit to be president.

Here, for example, was NBC the day after.

Yesterday we noted that Mitt Romney, down in the polls after the convention, was   throwing the kitchen sink   at President Obama. Little did we know the kitchen sink would include — on the anniversary  of 9/11 — one of the most over-the-top and (it turns out)  incorrect attacks of the general-election campaign .

And here was CBS the day after. (Sounds to me like they have the same White House press officer dictate their stories for them…)

(CBS News) The conventional wisdom emerged in Washington almost immediately on Wednesday: Mitt Romney’s handling of the violence in Egypt and Libya was a disaster.

“The comments were a big mistake, and the decision to double down on them was an even bigger mistake,” Steve Schmidt, senior campaign strategist to Sen. John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign, told CBS News. “There are legitimate criticisms to be made but you foreclose on your ability to make them when you try to score easy political points. And the American people, when the country is attacked, whether they’re a Republican or Democrat or independent, want to see leaders who have measured responses, not leaders whose first instinct is to try to score political points.”

Er, with respect Steve Schmidt – and all those other experty experts consulted by CBS – surely what the American people REALLY want when their country is attacked is the truth. They’d also like to be assured that everything possible had been done to prevent the attack happening; that when the attack was taking place, everything possible was done to try to save the lives of the ambassador and his team and that in the aftermath, serious attempts would be made to punish those responsible, reprimand those culpable for any security lapses, and learn important lessons about why the attack happened and how to avoid further such disasters occurring in future. Little, if any of this seems to have been done.

Instead, the post-Benghazi media coverage quickly became an exercise in finger pointing designed to show that it was anyone’s fault but the Obama administration’s. First, the attack on Romney. Then, the attempts to deflect attention on to the poor sap who made the anti-Islam hate video (which supposedly – though not at all in fact – provoked the fatal assault in the Benghazi consulate) – as if in some way to persuade us all that, hey, the lynching of the ambassador and his staff/protection kind of wasn’t that bad because, hey, we sort of invited it…..

Here in Britain, where the general understanding of Obama’s manifold inadequacies is so pitifully thin that about the most vigorous criticism we’re prepared to make of him is that maybe the muscle tone on his beautiful arms isn’t quite so perfect as that on his immaculate and delightful wife Michelle’s the Benghazi scandal hasn’t had much play.

But in the US conservative media – which basically means talk radio and the internet and the Wall Street Journal – the story is snowballing. And rightly so.

Here are a few examples: this one, this one and this one courtesy of the mighty Rush. Now, even the not noticeably conservative Reuters is joining the fray with more shocking revelations.

This is a big deal.

The Obama administration’s duplicity and mendacity is nothing those of us who’ve been observing, aghast, his disastrous foreign policy approaches since at least his infamous Cairo surrender monkey speech couldn’t have predicted. And while it’s nice to see his chickens coming home to roost and encouraging to realise that his chances of becoming a second-term president are diminishing by the minute, it’s hardly a situation you might call – hmm what’s the word? Oh yeah – “optimal” for the grieving relatives of the four men who died needlessly in order to satisfy the President’s wishful thinking that the Al Qaeda threat is diminishing and that there’s nothing wrong with the Middle East’s intractable problems that can’t be solved with a few emollient words, beautiful lies and maybe the occasional NASA-endorsed outreach programme….

Related posts:

  1. Does Mitt Romney prefer dog-poop yogurt?
  2. Romney’s Bad Judgement
  3. Mitt Romney and David Cameron: conservatives who won’t defend conservatism
  4. Is ‘Kojak’ Obama losing all his hair?

Better that a thousand liberals die than that one Al Qaeda terrorist should be waterboarded! | James Delingpole

November 10th, 2010

From Dubya’s new memoirs:

Of the thousands of terrorists we captured in the years after 9/11, about a hundred were placed into the CIA program. About a third of those were questioned using enhanced techniques. Three were waterboarded.

The information the detainees revealed constituted more than half of what the CIA knew about al-Qaeda. Their interrogations helped break up plots to attack American military and diplomatic facilities abroad, Heathrow Airport and Canary Wharf in London, and multiple targets in the United States.

Hmm. So that’ll be three as in the Three Stooges, the Three Graces, the Three Amigos, the Trinity, the Good, the Bad and the Ugly, the number of Avengers, the number of Goodies, and the number of protagonists in the popular Seventies children’s drama Hector’s House. Whichever way you’d spin it, I’d suggest that three is not a very large number of evil terrorists to have subjected to deeply unpleasant, but not fatal or permanently damaging torture in order to gain vital information that could save many more lives from future planned atrocities. It is, for example, 49 fewer than the number of innocents murdered in the 7/7 tube bombings; 199 fewer than the number killed in the Bali bombings; and 2933 fewer than the number of people murdered on 9/11.

But obviously, I know that all the liberals reading this will know better. They will all be able to tell me, hands on heart, that they would happily have sacrificed both their own lives and those of their children for the unalienable right of murderous Al-Qaeda terrorists not to have any form of unpleasantness inflicted on them by Western authorities.

And I salute their principles, really I do. It’s just that I hope, when I fly to New York tomorrow, they’re nowhere near the passenger lists of the flight I’m taking. Guys, I implore you, fly Dhimmi Air instead. There the body-searches are cursory and determinedly non-discriminatory. And in the likely event that your plane does blow up half way across the Atlantic, you will at least have the consolation of knowing as the tiny parts of your body drift oceanwards that you and all your fellow impeccably liberal passengers have kept the moral high ground to the last.


  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • LinkedIn
  • RSS
  • Technorati
  • Twitter
  • email

2 Responses to “Better that a thousand liberals die than that one Al Qaeda terrorist should be waterboarded!”

  1. Ben Nicholson says:November 12, 2010 at 12:53 pmCongratulations on your Bastiat Prize James! You certainly deserve it. Your articles could save the world, yet.
  2. orkneylad says:November 12, 2010 at 11:36 pmJames, I hope you avoided the body scanners…this breaking story is shocking.TSA Desktop Image Makes Joke of Cavity Searching Children

    The ‘clincher’ for me is the screen’s Specular Reflection at the top of the image, on the metal strip.

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)