Via The Hill, John McCain levels some harsh criticisms against the Obama administration saying that the White House Libya response was either a cover-up or incompetence.
"This is either a massive cover-up or an incompetence that is not acceptable service to the American people," he said on CBS's "Face the Nation."
McCain said that information that has surfaced since the attacks, which claimed the lives of four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, indicates the narrative provided by the White House in the days following was "patently false."
"There was no demonstration. So for literally days and days they told the American people something that had no basis in fact whatsoever," he said.
The White House initially claimed that the attacks on the consulate in Benghazi were sparked by spontaneous anger over an anti-Muslim film created in the U.S., but later said the attack had been planned and carried out by armed militants.
New details have emerged showing that CIA operators were told to "stand down" and not help the U.S. Ambassador to Libya and his team.
The CIA has denied anyone in the CIA refused help, the Obama administration is denying they denied the help... everyone is denying responsibility.
The major media is also doing their own part to help the Obama administration cover-up the facts, by not reporting the new emerging details to the public, with the exception of a few that are touching on the story but headlining and highlighting the White House denial rather than the emerging information.
Via Power Line:
The Times is too busy talking up the economy–”U.S. Growth Rate Up to 2%!” “Slow But Steady Improvement!”–and banging away at John Sununu to bother with anything as mundane as national security.Read the entire Power Line piece.
The Washington Post doesn’t seem to have written anything original about the latest allegations, either, although it has prominently featured the administration’s various defensive efforts, for example by highlighting Geraldo Rivera’s criticism of his colleagues at Fox and his urging that any discussion of Benghazi wait until after the election. “Vintage Fox News stuff,” wrote the Post’s Erik Wemple. But of the current controversy the Post has reported nothing, unless it has printed the Associated Press article that appears on its web site.
Since the AP coverage is what the vast majority of newspaper readers will see about the Benghazi story (if they see anything), it is worthy of study. The article that appeared this morning begins not with the allegations that were made on Fox yesterday, but with the administration’s response:
With just over a week left until the presidential election, the MSM appears to have decided it is more important to get Obama reelected than to report the news.
On a side note, in the Cedar Rapids Gazette endorsement for Mitt Romney, they make mention of the possible cover-up.
But where the nation was most in need — restarting the economy and making significant progress on reducing our enormous national debt that recently soared past $16 trillion and dangerously threatens our future well-being — the president and his administration have come up short.And more recently, the ever-changing account of how his administration has responded to and explained — or hasn’t — the assassination of a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans in Libya is raising troublesome doubts about the chain of command and whether there’s been a cover-up.
Despite the media's attempt to insulate Obama from the Libya attack fallout, editorials, bloggers and the social media has made sure that the story is being reported, is trickling in to American's homes, via local media, and in the end, the MSM is simply making themselves irrelevant and less trusted.
