- Obama military downsizing leaves U.S. too weak to counter global threats, panel finds
- Sen. Tom Coburn vows to slow down budget-busting bills ahead of recess
- Obama fantasizes about more executive power, signs new order on federal contractors
- Clintons call Klein, Halper, Kessler ‘a Hat Trick of despicable actors’: report
- Boehner accuses Obama of ‘legacy of lawlessness’
- Pro-marijuana group claims responsibility for Brooklyn Bridge flag swap
- Young adults shun Obamacare mostly due to cost: survey
- Stabbing attack on transgender girl, 15, was ‘bias motivated,’ police say
- LGBT adults still lean overwhelmingly toward Democratic Party
- Lawmakers rattled by Syria genocide horrors, call on Obama to act
KNIGHT: Benghazi’s media maze
Question of the Day
You just knew press coverage of the congressional hearing on the Benghazi cover-ups last Wednesday would be nonexistent or squirrely, right?
It was mostly the latter, so break out the nuts.
After the hearing, an ABC radio segment utterly ignored the content. Three State Department whistleblowers had exposed alarming contradictions in the official White House account, but ABC News led with a clip of Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, Maryland Democrat, who said the hearing was politically motivated, followed by a GOP spokesman who said it wasn’t. That was it.
Pay no attention; there’s nothing to see here, folks.
On NBC, veteran newsman David Gregory breezily blamed the intelligence community for the Obama administration’s initial claims that the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks on the U.S. Consulate were a spontaneous uprising against an anti-Muslim video. U.N. Ambassador Susan E. Rice, who on five Sunday talk-show appearances on Sept. 16 falsely blamed the video, was a “peripheral player,” said Mr. Gregory.
Then, perhaps realizing he was being too obvious in carrying water for the Obama team, he finished with, “there was at least sloppiness with regard to why they were describing this in the way that they were when it very quickly became apparent that this was a terror attack.”
The White House knew through real-time communiques that the attack had nothing to do with the video. Yet, days later, Mrs. Rice, along with then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, continued to blame the video. This is “sloppiness?” A shorter word comes to mind. A couple of them, in fact.
The night before the hearing, Mrs. Rice received the Louis E. Martin Great American Award from the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies at a ceremony attended by Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. You can’t say the left doesn’t take care of its own, especially those who fall on their swords to protect the White House.
Of the news networks, only Fox had real-time coverage, but even Fox broke away for updates on the kidnap-rape-recovered-victims story out of Cleveland, and the first-degree murder verdict against Arizona waitress Jodi Arias. The other major news sites led with the juicy, personal-interest stories.
In case you hadn’t followed the hearing, these are some of the nuggets missed or underplayed by the media squirrels:
Mark Thompson, deputy coordinator for operations at the State Department, testified that he requested an armed squad be sent to Benghazi before the final assault on the compound, but was denied.
Gregory Hicks, deputy chief of the mission in Libya, testified: “I was stunned. My jaw dropped. And I was embarrassed,” watching Mrs. Rice’s mischaracterizations of the attack.
When Rep. Jason Chaffetz, Utah Republican, went to Libya to investigate, Mr. Hicks testified, he was told by Mrs. Clinton’s chief of staff, Cheryl D. Mills, not to let Mr. Chaffetz attend any meeting without a lawyer. When Mr. Chaffetz did attend one such meeting, Mr. Hicks was phoned by a furious Ms. Mills, who knows damage control; she conducted Bill Clinton’s impeachment defense.
Mr. Hicks said higher-ups tried to block him from cooperating with the committee, and that he was busted to a lower job.
With that, and more, The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank proclaimed in his column Thursday that “Hicks didn’t lay a glove on Hillary Rodham Clinton.” It’s true that Hillary’s name barely came up. But then, in the run-up to Watergate, they didn’t lay a glove on Richard Nixon, either.
© Copyright 2014 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
About the Author
Robert Knight is senior fellow for the American Civil Rights Union and a columnist for The Washington Times.
TWT Video Picks
Both parties recognize the Democrats' scam
Get Breaking Alerts
- Inside the Ring: Israel surprised by Hamas tunnel network
- Army's 3-D printed bombs to create 'a whole new universe' of lethal capabilities
- Chicken pox outbreak puts illegal immigrant facility on lockdown
- CRUZ: A tale of two hospitals: One in Israel, one in Gaza
- Colorado poll shows women tuning out Democrats' 'war on women' strategy
- Sarah Palin's online channel hits snag as Stephen Colbert buys similar URL
- CIA admits improperly hacking Senate computers in search of Bush-era information
- Israel surprised by Hamas tunnel network
- Obama military strategy too weak for future security, panel reports
- Report: 40% of weapons sent to Afghanistan are unaccounted for