“Did the White House order a cover-up over the murder of Libya’s US Ambassador?”
Of course they did. And nobody who follows politics on either side is the least be surprised, so let’s just forestall the ostentatious OUTRAGE that generally attaches to such stories.
Instead, I’d like to reiterate a point I made here earlier today: in order to be reasonably and accurately informed about the failed or dangerous political machinations of the left in this country, we are forced increasingly to rely on foreign media.
Our contemporary journalists — most of whom graduate from universities whose journalism departments are rather openly “progressive” — act as they’ve been trained to act: following the orders and dictates of those for whom they are PR activists; and looking to sabotage those who seek to upset that power dynamic, of which they are an integral part.
When the revolution comes, it will be televised. The key to our success will be to shut off the damn tv and refuse to pick up any kind of local liberal rag.
But enough sermonizing. Here, from the Telegraph UK:
Now that Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, has confirmed there was an explicit link between al-Qaeda and the attack, questions are being asked about the role Dr Rice played in trying to play down the significance of the attack. The Republicans have already called for her to resign from her post for misleading the American people.
But the real smoking gun is whether the Obama administration was warned in advance that al-Qaeda was planning an attack. A number of Israeli newspapers have suggested that Washington was warned as early as September 4 – a week earlier – that the environment in Benghazi was becoming increasingly hostile and anti-American, while in London the Foreign Office took the decision to withdraw all its consular staff from Benghazi two months before the murders. This decision was based on an intelligence assessment made by MI6 that al-Qaeda was openly operating in the area following a failed assassination attempt on Sir Dominic Asquith, Britain’s ambassador to Libya, in June.
It is well known that British intelligence works closely with its counterpart in America, and if MI6 knew al-Qaeda was operating in the Benghazi region, then it is highly likely that the CIA did too.
Suddenly the Administration’s “it’s nothing to do with us, guv,” defence is starting to look rather thin, with potentially disastrous consequences for Mr Obama’s re-election prospects.
Poor scribe. His conclusion leads me to believe he thinks we have a free and impartial press in this country. While what is really going on in many newsrooms — and almost assuredly with the aid and counsel of people within the Obama administration and campaign apparatus — is a strategy for how to release information in dribs and drabs, how to modulate and direct the important informational nodal points that will have to come out, now that certain findings have come to light, such that emphases is tactically controlled, and the narrative carefully monitored.
After all, they only have to keep the stories at bay for another 30-some-odd days — during which time Mitt Romney, who has declared whining about misinformation campaigns and media malfeasance off limits — will know doubt do something very elitist and white and anti-woman/gay/immigrant/working man/middle class/venture capitalisty/tax evasivey.
At which point the news cycle can be recalibrated, and the narrative flow once again controlled with an iron-fisted collusion between the activist, progressive legacy media and their champion of “fundamental transformation” who, thus far, has upheld his end of the bargain.
This country is barely even recognizable anymore.
– Which is why I forgive the UK writer for his misunderstanding of who it is here who does our reporting for us.