Benghazi

With any luck, there will be some good to come out of the attack on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya, on 11 September 2012.  Beside the strengthening of all our consulates and embassies around the world, this will hang like an albatross around the neck of the Democrats in general and Cankles specifically.

The official story immediately after the attack on 11 September 2012 was that it was tied to a popular uprising in anger of an anti-Islamic video produced by some refugee living in Los Angeles, despite that fact that there was no credible evidence for such a link.  The administration propagated this myth despite the fact that people within the government spoke out and repudiated the stated reason for the attack, and when military and intelligence organs reported what they had told the White House and what they, in turn, were told to do by the White House.

Last month, the New York Times, that venerable liberal news organ, came out with a story denying that Al Qaeda had anything to do with the attack.  A Senate report, released last week, blew that theory to smithereens.  The result is that it is no longer a question that the attack was politically motivated, and not by some offensive movie, the White House through its various offices lied about it and perpetuated the lie for months and that four brave Americans died with nary a thought from the government that retribution should be meted out.

This is hardly the worst scandal brewing.  By far, the NSA and Obamacare will wreak more havoc on the country than Benghazi.  But what's troubling about Benghazi, again, is the way the MSM is handling it. Instead of revisiting it, as it should, it has turned to Bridgegate, the politically motivated payback initiated, at the very least, by the office of Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey, if not the Governor himself.  Mr. Christie has some laudable traits, one of which is his outspokenness, but he can also be a lout when he wants to be.  For liberals, he is the foremost potential challenger to Cankles for the presidency in 2016.  Without having been asked, directly, the MSM is doing the Democrats' bidding by digging into this story as if it were Watergate revisited.  Perhaps there's a scandal to be had there.  But this issue pales in comparison to Benghazi.

First, no one died because of Bridgegate.  No Americans were targeted for death.  No American territory was compromised.  Inconvenience for thousands of New Jerseyans and New Yorkers was all that happened.

Second, Mr. Christie acted with dispatch by firing two aides whose emails detailing their plot were released. To this day, none of the four fall guys for Benghazi have been fired.

Third, unlike Cankles, Mr. Christie apologized for Bridgegate, and he did so without having to be summoned before a congressional hearing.  Cankles outlandishingly asked the congressional panel What does it matter? regarding the reason for the four deaths in Benghazi, and has failed to satisfactorily explain her role in leaving the consulate defenseless.

Fourth, Bridgegate was taken up within days of the revelation of the staffers' emails.  It took nearly a year for there to be anything approaching an acknowledgement that there was no spontaneous uprising and that Al Qaeda was in fact involved in the Benghazi attack.

Fifth, unlike Benghazi, which the MSM has avoided like the plague, Bridgegate has been examined with a thoroughness we could only wish for the Benghazi attack.

My liberal friend hit the nail right on the head:  The MSM is doing a disservice to the country in the way it is giving this administration a free pass.

I am not a Christie supporter by any means.  I think there are far better conservative candidates out there. I am an avowed opponent of Cankles' candidacy.  What irks me is how the MSM continues to push a liberal agenda and declare, at the same time, that it is merely reporting the news.  I state again:  The MSM are no longer journalists but editorialists who choose what news they will report, which gives them incredible power to shape political dialogue.

The traditional Fourth Estate has become, in actuality, an offshoot of the Fifth Column, hiding behind the First Amendment's protections of freedom of the press.

This is not what the Founding Fathers envisioned, I'm quite sure.

(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles