Politico: You Know, You Silly Benghazi Believers….

There’s been quite a few complaints that the news media, which is mostly left leaning and Democrat voters, have refused to do their jobs on Benghazi. There have been a few intrepid and dogged reporters, yet, for the most part, it has been more about defending Team Obama and attacking citizens who just want answers. Here comes another that perfectly encapsulates the problems, as written by Politico’s Lauren French

The world of Benghazi believers

Hillary Clinton passed on the Sunday shows after the Benghazi attacks to preserve her White House aspirations.

The White House is covering up for political reasons why President Barack Obama wasn’t in the Situation Room as the attacks were unfolding.

And there are reasons CNN can track down the masterminds behind the 2012 ambush but the U.S. government can’t.

These are just a sampling of the doggedly held views of a die-hard cadre of Republican lawmakers about the controversial events that led to the death 20 months ago of four Americans in Benghazi — a word that is now synonymous for conservatives with cover-up and conspiracy.

Call them the Benghazi believers.

These Republicans — and there are dozens — are deeply convinced that the truth has yet to be fully aired about the attacks on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Libya that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.

The blog post essentially attempts to say that tons of details have already come out and Republicans are nuts for continuing to dwell on the issue. And, it is a blog post. Lauren French is, like so many others in the major media who write on the subject, a reporter. Her bio shows she is a Congress reporter for Politico, and has worked as a reporter in several areas since she graduated from George Washington University in 2012 with a degree in journalism. Yet, there is no reporting in the article. It is a rehash of Benghazi, lite on details, long on subtly attacking Republicans and Conservatives who just want to know the truth. Flip it around: had this happened under a Republican president, Lauren and her compadres would be asking questions, digging, looking for The Truth.

I’ve seen lots and lots of theories regarding Benghazi. Some seem pretty far out there. Doug Ross posted one the other day, that, as he says, turns out to be less and less insane every day. Where does The Truth lie? When the 9/11 Truthers started their conspiracy theories, people came and knocked them down with facts. Reporters, scientists, military members, engineers, etc, got out there and investigated. Here, liberal reporters and news outlets have abrogated their responsibility to investigate, instead, they’ve taken the Democrat line, and turned into bloggers with a political view. Did Ms. French do any investigation on her own, or simply go “hey, let’s attack Republicans and Conservatives, make them look crazy”? All we want is the truth.

I suspect that, at the end of the day, this was all about incompetence and political spin. When it comes to Team Obama, don’t assign anything nefarious or complicated to what has been the norm for Team Obama: incompetence, a weak work ethic, shiny object policies, making everything hyper-political, obfuscation, a lack of transparency, spin after failure, old fashioned cover-ups.

If the president’s name were Bush or Reagan, we would long ago have had a minute-by-minute accounting of his every move. And if the incident involved some faraway American warrior’s slaying of a jihadist emir, we would long ago have had a Situation Room photo depicting Obama as maestro . . . with an accompanying soundtrack of classified leaks portraying his courage while others were under fire. Andrew C. McCarthy

Few, if any, left-leaning reporters care about the answer to the question. There is little interest to all the questions surrounding Benghazi. Why was security denied multiple times? Why was Ambassador Stevens there on 9/11? Why was no military help sent? Why was there no extra security on that day, despite multiple credible threats? Why the “it was a video” spin? Western Journalism has 50 questions. One of them is “Why have no suspects been arrested for the attack?” A real news organization would be looking for answers.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

5 Responses to “Politico: You Know, You Silly Benghazi Believers….”

  1. Jeffery says:

    BENGHAZI!! This is the rallying cry of the far-right for the upcoming election. Obamacare will be entrenched so they need something else to run on. BENGHAZI!! Multiple Congressional investigations have yielded nothing, so the insufferable Trey Gowdy is raising money for the Republic Party and solidifying his position as a top tier know-nothing and all-around douchebag.

    Teach is confused at what constitutes journalism. Repeating Republic talking points and falsehoods is not journalism. Actually seeking the truth is.

    “If the president’s name were Bush or Reagan, we would long ago have had a minute-by-minute accounting of his every move.”

    Bullshit. In 1983, under Mr. Reagan, 63 were killed, including 17 Americans when the US Embassy in Lebanon was bombed. This was the most deadly attack against an American diplomatic mission in history. Although Democrats controlled Congress I don’t recall them seeking to impeach the President over his obvious incompetence.

    In 1983, under Mr. Reagan, 241 American servicemen were killed when US facility in Lebanon was bombed. Then VP, Bush the Elder, declared: “We would not be cowed by terrorists!”

    In 1984, under Mr. Reagan, 2 American servicemen were killed when the US Embassy in Lebanon was attacked again. Also, in 1984 we were cowed by terrorists and left Lebanon.

    During Mr. Obama’s tenure, there have also been 7 attacks, with only 4 Americans killed. BENGHAZI!!

    So yes, Trey, conduct your kangaroo court, but expect your Democratic colleagues to ask why St. Reagan and the Bush’s didn’t enact policies to protect our diplomats.

    In fact, of the 42 attacks on US diplomatic facilities, 7 occurred under St. Reagan and 12 under Bush the Younger.

  2. Jl says:

    Of course the investigation isn’t so much on the fact that it happened but on the obvious cover-up and the blaming of an innocent video, and the fact that so far nothing has been done to catch the perpetrators. Also, I don’t recall the Secretary of State during the Reagan or Bush presidencies saying “what does it matter” in regards to Americans being killed. And J, counting the number of attacks or people killed under various presidents as your “argument ” is sort of stupid. “Number of attacks and people killed reached an all-time high under Democratic president Roosevelt during WW2.” “All though Democrats controlled Congress (Reagan) I don’t recall them seeking to impeach the President..” I don’t recall them seeking to impeaching the president now, do you, J? “Trey Gowdy top-tier no-nothing and all around douchebag..” He obviously scares the crap out of poor Jeffery or he wouldn’t name-call (again) and would offer up some evidence to back up his childish assertions. But he can’t, as usual.

  3. Jeffery says:


    What was covered-up in the obvious cover-up?

    Have you ever seen and heard Trey Gowdy? Total douche. Half the douche of most House Repubs, but still a douche. And that douche hair. Worse than Senator Rand Paul’s douche hair.

    So you think that 4 murdered Americans is somehow worse than nearly 300 Americans murdered while St. Ronnie was preoccupied. That’s interesting. Who killed all these brave Americans in 1983 and 1984? Did St. Ronnie catch them before he left office?

    The impeachment caucus includes: Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa; Rep. Blake Farenthold, R-Texas; Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas; Rep. Bill Flores, R-Texas; Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif.; Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla.; Rep. Kerry Bentivolio, R-Mich.; Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas; Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla.; Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah; Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C.; Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn.; Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas; Rep. Trey Radel, R-Fla.; and Rep. Ted Yoho, R-Fla.

    Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/05/impeach-obama-campaign-moves-mainstream/#Et0oIzy3sktoRv5E.99

    What then-Sec Clinton said to Sen Johnson, Douche-WI, “With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator.”

  4. david7134 says:

    This is what difference it makes:
    1. What was the President doing that distracted him from his job on that evening?
    2. Why didn’t Obama or Hillary react to the event in any manner?
    3. Why weren’t assets sent to the area within the first few hours of the initiation of the conflict? They are there, or should be and can react that fast.
    4. The president used the power of his office to shape public opinion in preparations for election–not legal.
    5. The American people were lied to, why?
    6. The Federal government imprisoned a man for making a stupid video, and threatened him with further actions– remember the 1st amendment.
    7. There has to date been no response to the murders.

    The list can go on.

    As to Reagan, he responded. He could not prevent the killing but at least he was a leader when we needed one.

  5. DL Sly says:

    Here is a great vid of former prosecutor, now Rep. Gowdy taking the media to task for their own derilection of duty in the Benghazi debacle and cover-up.
    Enjoy! Well, except for Jeffrey….

Pirate's Cove