The mainstream media has been exhibiting a pervasive and continuous bias in favor of President Obama throughout the current election cycle. There have been many examples of this. The latest example is the terrorist attack on the US embassy in Libya, which resulted in the deaths of four Americans, including the US ambassador. Stop for a minute and digest the level of this atrocity. We are not talking about killing an armed combatant or even a tourist; we are talking about assassinating an ambassador with diplomatic immunity who is supposed to be under the protection of the Libyan government. When was the last time you heard of a foreign ambassador being assassinated? How about never? Can you imagine the furor if the Iranian or Syrian ambassador to the US had been assassinated on US soil?
The mainstream media has been treating this event as an unfortunate accident. “Oh, it was a spontaneous reaction to an anti-muslim video.” “Oh you have to excuse Libya. The government doesn’t really have control over the country.” To that, I say bull____ ! As we say in NY, if you believe that, I have a bridge I can sell you.
The timeline of this event was as follows:
9/11- Four Americans, including Chris Stevens, the US Ambassador, were assassinated in Benghazi.
9/12 – President Obama released a tepid statement condemning the attack. Then, rather than deal with matters directly by meeting face-to-face with world leaders who happened to be in NY for meetings at the UN, flew to Las Vegas for a fundraiser.
9/16 – Susan Rice, US Ambassador to the UN, issued a statement calling the attack spontaneous. Does anyone think she acted on her own initiative? Again, there’s that bridge.
9/16 – The same day, a top Libyan official contradicted her calling the attack pre-planned.
9/19 – Matthew Olsen, Director of National Counterterrorism Center, confirmed it was a terrorist attack
As I said, the Obama Admnistration tried to portray the attack as a spontaneous “demonstration” in response to a video that portrayed Mohammed in a negative light. But, the facts and subsequent events do not support this and, in fact, make that analysis seem naive and ridiculous. Firstly, the “demonstrators” used AK-47s and other heavy weapons that terrorists would use as opposed to demonstrators, who would have used bottles and rocks. Secondly, there have been worldwide demonstrations at other US embassies since then indicating some coordination. Thirdly, the attack came on the anniversary of 9/11. Despite what President Obama would have us believe, it appears that Al Quaeda is enjoying a resurgence.
The mainstream press’ underreporting and mischaracterization of this incident has been outrageous. Pat Caddell, Democratic Pollster, has opined that any other president would have been crucified. He drew a comparison to President Bush’s “Katrina moment,” when President Bush was crucified by the press. These incidents should have been touted as examples of Mr. Obama’s failed Middle East policy of appeasement.
Does anyone remember Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement of Nazi Germany in the 1930s? How did that turn out? Did Mr. Obama study history at Harvard?
Also, the press has not reported, in depth, on the US’s lack of preparedness, particularly in view of the anniversary of 9/11. Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, should bear some culpability here, but she has largely escaped criticism along with Mr. Obama. It should be noted that the Washington Post, instead of running stories on this, ran a front page story on Mitt Romney’s high school hazing incident. I guess the powers that be at the Post considered that to be more newsworthy. So much for their credibility and objectivity.
I always thought that the voters were too smart to be fooled by the bias coverage of the press. Based upon the polls I have seen, however, it seems that they may not be. Many of them may be too distracted by their personal lives or just don’t care enough. I hope I am wrong about this, but we will see on November 6.