The
Lame-stream media reluctance to report anything negative about
anything Democrat just got more bizarre. Here they more or less
ask themselves "at what point do we
do what we're supposed to?"
At what point does
this become a story beyond Fox News? Fox News has learned from sources
who were on the ground in Benghazi that an urgent request from the CIA
annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. consulate and
subsequent attack several hours later was denied by U.S. officials —
who [...]
This comment pretty much says it all:
Abbey Cavanuagh · Top Commenter
Just read
today's Washington Post. Nothing on the front page. Did a
word search, a brief mention about 3 weeks ago. Shameful. The media is
going to pay for the last 5 years propping Obama up...and this...THIS
is unbelievable that they are tamping down on a story of such
importance. What I want to know is WHY the Ambassador was set up, and
that is exactly what it looks like, even if you just look at the little
bit out that's available on the web. To me, and of course, I'm guessing
like everybody else that cares, it looks like the Egyptian Brotherhood
was going to kidnap the Ambassador in exchange for the Blind Sheik.
Those two heroes that finally ignored the stand down order JUST GOT IN
THE WAY of a planned kidnapping. Gee, ya think Obama had something to
do with this? Oh, and by the way, we might not have to guess if the
MEDIA DID IT'S JOB.
Other comments
- IF George Bush had done these things, what
else would be on the front pages but this before the election?
- There is something beneath this story of such
profound significance that they are going to such extremes to hide the
truth. What was it? A gun running operation?
Now that it's all over for the Obamas, look for CBS's Sixty
Minutes, which has assiduously avoided any negative reporting on Obama,
to start getting on the record (just as they did with Bill Clinton— after
he'd been impeached). |
