Do You Think The News Media Has Appropiately Covered Benghazi?

We have a situation where our embassy in a very dangerous place in the world requests additional security and instead has it reduced.

The next morning, our president made an arguably vague comment about "acts of terror" and then jetted off to Las Vegas for a political fund-raiser.

run down our children with bulldozers.

If we can't have a fair and investigative news source what do we have in our democracy??

(it's you're, by the way)

Emmerson presented a broad critique of the U.S.-led war on terrorism under the George W. Bush administration in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, denouncing the controversial practices of rendition of waterboarding and "a tidal wave of panic legislation across the globe which has caused incalculable and lasting damage to the architecture of international human rights law."

He said that although Obama had initially retreated from Bush's "global war paradigm" — which viewed the struggle against terrorism as a permanent war — he said a similar mindset has "reared its head" in the past 18 months. He cited figures compiled by the London Bureau of Investigative Journalism, which alleged that at least 474 civilians have been killed in Pakistan alone and that at least 50 civilians have died in follow-up strikes, in which civilians who came to the aid of victims of previous strikes were killed.

I think you've got Rabel all wrong. Rabel was talking about Israel sinking American ships, (USS Liberty) and running over Americans with bulldozers, (Rachel Corrie). Alright she wasn't a child at the time, but she was still very young.

The polarization in this country is something else.

I can somewhat understand supporters of Obama wanting to give him the benefit of the doubt and buying the "fog of war" and wanting to take time to get it right explanations, but dismissing it out of hand as inconsequential or a manufactured controversy is astounding' and, to me, appalling.

We have a situation where our embassy in a very dangerous place in the world requests additional security and instead has it reduced.

On 9/11 when you would expect our government to be on high alert for Islamist attacks, one, not surprisingly takes place in Benghazi and two of our diplomats, including our ambassador are murdered. Two former Navy seals who are in the vicinity for a thus far unspecified mission (probably associated with getting control of all the weapons that were let loose when Ghadaffi went down) attempt to come to the rescue of our people and themselves are killed.

We now know that our State Department watched the tragedy unfold in real time and within 2 hours of the beginning of the attack sent between 300 and 400 e-mails to top administration staff advising them of the attack and that a known terrorist group had taken responsibility for it.

The next morning, our president made an arguably vague comment about "acts of terror" and then jetted off to Las Vegas for a political fund-raiser.

Thereafter everything coming out of the Administration asserted that the attack was a spontaneous spin-off from a demonstration in reaction to a two-bit video that insulted Mohammed. This extended so far as having UN Ambassador Rice going on five Sunday talk shows to tell the nation that our "best intelligence" was that "in fact" it was a spontaneous spin-off from a demonstration protesting the video.

Meanwhile the President himself repeatedly declared that we didn't yet know if it was a terrorist attack...despite his claim at Debate #2 that he declared it as such on 9/12 in the Rose Garden.

Eventually the story started to crack and people placed under oath before congress acknowledged/admitted it was a terrorist attack (Which, by the way, the Libyan president flatly declared the day after it occurred, and in a manner which essentially mocked the alternative story being told).

Some two weeks after the attack, the White House Press Secretary announces to the press on Airforce One that it is "self-evident" that it was a act of terrorism. At a subsequent briefing he tells the press "there's no question that something went wrong."

Still, the president in one of his bold submissions to the piercing questioning of the ladies on The View, refuses to acknowledge that it was an act of terror, and speaks before the UN without declaring it an attack by terrorists and referring to the video six times.

Now everyone knows absolutely that not only was it an attack on the clearly
significant date of 9/11 by Islamist terrorists, but there was never a demonstration in Benghazi protesting the video.

And this is an insignificant story that doesn't deserve the attention of the news media?

The questions that need to be answered:

Why were the requests for additional security in Libya rejected and existing security reduced? Who made these decisions?

Why did the Administration tell the American people that the two murdered former Seals were part of the Ambassador's security detail when they clearly were not.

Why did Ambassador Rice go on her TV tour to tell a story that the Administration knew was false?

Why wasn't there an effort to come to the aid of embattled Americans in Benghazi? It appears that the diplomats probably died in the first two hours of the attack, but how would the Administration of known that, and it is known that the former Seals didn't meet there end until some seven hours after the attack began. There are reports indicating that they were on a rooftop with a machine gun when hit by RPGs. The machine gun is said to be encrusted with their blood, suggesting that they fought on after being wounded.

We have four heroes murdered by terrorists and there is strong reason to believe that if our government didn't fail them prior to and after the attack, they didn't regard their sacrifice sufficient to deserve the truth about what actually happened.

There are only two possible explanations:

Incredible incompetence
A lying cover-up attempt.

We are less than two weeks away from a presidential election, and the MSM seems content with allowing a governmental "investigation" designed to take it past election day (Remember it took the FBI agents investigation the matter three weeks to get to Benghazi).

"Obviously something went wrong," but the MSM doesn't think voters should know what went wrong and led to another disaster in the region before election day?

As for comparisons to Watergate, I remember that time and I remember partisan supporters of Nixon dismissing it out of hand and arguing that it was a Liberal manufactured controversy.

If we still had a decent news media in this country, I might be interested in more coverage of important news events.

As it is, most of them just pete and repeat the copy from the originating "news" agency, never doing any fact checking, interviewing or confirmations of their own.

When I want some balanced, investigative news reporting about events, I turn to the BBC and other international news media and independent writers.

A Woodward/Bernstein standard of expose just isn't possible with today's journalists and publishers in the US.

Charles Woods, father of Tyrone Woods, said he thought Barack Obama had 'no remorse' over the attack and felt Hillary Clinton was 'not telling the truth'.

And he revealed that at the ceremony for the return of Tyrone's body, the Vice President approached his family and asked, 'Did your son always have balls the size of cue balls?'

'They were all wonderful. They held my hand, offered condolences, gave warm hugs, and were extremely compassionate and genuinely sad for my loss, as I fought back tears and tried to project an image of strength to honor my SEAL son.'

...ALL of our supposed investigative reporters need to be digging out the truth. We are not a solid democracy and we don't stand a chance in the future if we can't count on at least that.