• Activity

    May 2013
    S M T W T F S
    « Apr   Jun »
  • Thumbed Up Love

  • Save the Puppies

    teh puppyblender
  • Corporate

  • Remember

  • Archives

  • Categories

  • Meta

Benghazi Hearing Postscript: Where Do We Go From Here?

Well, the first (of what should be many) Benghazi hearing is over, and it was a doozy, if you watched it. Depending on where you tuned in (other than CSPAN), you likely missed it. The Make Believe Media (MBM), the Unicorn King’s Praetorian Guard, threw the Gosnell Blanket℠ over it:

Even before the six hours of congressional hearings began, CNN telegraphed its disinterest in the Benghazi “whistleblower” testimony by cutting away to Cleveland, Ohio, for what Wolf Blitzer falsely promised would be the first public statement by kidnapping victim Amanda Berry. What actually happened in Cleveland was a ginormous media scrum for a statement by the victim’s sister Beth Serrano (who has been interviewed by every news organization on the planet already) asking that reporters “please respect our privacy.”

That particular goose-chase blunder — pre-empting the start of the House Oversight Committee hearing to hype coverage of what proved to be a non-story —  was a clumsy signal: Nobody important at CNN thinks the Obama administration did anything wrong in the Benghazi affair, and therefore the congressional investigation is a trivial exercise of no genuine public interest.

The fix was in, and the Piers Morgan Network might as well change its slogan to, “CNN: What Difference, At This Point, Does It Make?” 

Hours before the hearing ended, National Journal’s “Chief Correspondent” had created a 1300 word roadmap for his MBM print brethren to follow: Benghazi: Incompetence, But No Cover-up. The ineffably brutal Stacy McCain closed his piece with what, for many of us, has become too bloody obvious:

This is journalism as a partisan team sport, and the guys who call the shots at NBC, CBS, ABC and CNN don’t care how dishonest their bias is, they only care about winning — i.e., electing Democrats, and helping Democrats enact their policy agenda — so that as long as a Democrat is in the White House and opposition to the Democrat agenda can be effectively marginalized, the truth doesn’t matter. [emphasis mine]

Go read the whole thing, and follow the link there to Stacy’s new venture, Viral Read.



The coverage of the hearing in the MBM uses that word: partisan, in every piece I’ve encountered. How the word is used kinda amuses me. Here’s the lede of Howard LaFranchi’s piece over at the CSM:

The Benghazi terrorist attack returned to Congress Wednesday in hours of testimony – and sharply partisan questioning – that included the first public retelling from a US diplomat in Libya at the time of what happened the night Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed. [emphasis mine]

There are few–if any–MBM outlets that didn’t pre-determine the hearing was nothing more than partisan posturing by the Stupid Party, led by House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform chairman Darrel Issa, who are staging a theatrical production aimed wholly at smearing the Unicorn King and His Court. The Democrat committee members  are portrayed as valiantly attempting to defend the Obama administration against those partisan Republican bastards (spit!).

The Democrats flew the ‘partisan bastards’ flag before any of the witnesses uttered a word. In his opening statement, ranking minority member Elijah Cummings made it loud and clear he considered the hearing nothing more than a media-fueled (huh?) Republican witchhunt:


Problem is, as the witnesses delivered their answers to committee members’ questions, it became pretty damn obvious the Dems on the committee didn’t want to ask them anything about what they witnessed before, during, or after the September 11, 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, because the coverup had been laid bare:

…[Gregory] Hicks, the second highest ranking State Department official in Libya when the consulate was attacked on the 11th anniversary of 9/11, confirmed the following facts under oath: There were no protests outside the U.S. compound; the anti-Islamic YouTube video denounced by the administration was a “non-event” in Libya and had nothing whatsoever to do with the assault that night; Hicks’ team knew almost immediately that the attack was carried out by terrorists; and all of this information was relayed to Washington in the hours and days afterward.

The unctuous Dana Milbank called Gregory Hicks “a virtuoso storyteller,” because he (or his editors) didn’t have the balls to call him a liar. Hicks, in his testimony, had pointed the finger directly at Team Hillary! as the source of the YouTube video bullshit, and how they tried to maintain their cover story, including:

Hicks… charged that Clinton’s key State Department lieutenant and longtime family retainer, Cheryl Mills, made a concerted effort to block him from meeting with a congressional delegation and that he had never been interviewed by the FBI in connection to the attack. Hicks said that he had been demoted after asking too many questions of his superiors about their response to Benghazi.

Which puts the onus for the false narrative that put a man in jail directly in Hillary!’s lap.

Which cannot be allowed to happen.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

There is one comment

Comments are closed.

Other Stuff


Advertisment ad adsense adlogger