Benghazi Hearings

The proverbial just hit the fan in the US today.

Greg Hicks testified before congress that the Obama administration tried to get him to shut up about what happened the night that 4 Americans, including the ambassador, died.

This is bigger that Watergate. As the Republicans keep saying, no one died at Watergate.

There are a lot of questions about what actually happened, and why the Obama administration tried to blame a youtube video even after it was known that video had nothing to do with the attack. Even the response to the questions raises questions, since the Obama administration has denied access to almost all information even remotely connected to the attack.

This is serious stuff, and could easily lead to Obama being impeached. 

So naturally, the media are having a field day… covering it up.

Nope. We’ll have none of that. Instead, reporter Dilanian spews Obama talking points in the most blatantly partisan fashion imaginable:

Hicks and two other State Department witnesses shed little new light on the key questions at issue in the hearing: whether there was anything more the U.S. military could have done to thwart the attack and whether the Obama administration intentionally misled the American people when officials initially said the attacks stemmed from a protest.

An independent review board has concluded that neither charge is true, but the Republican-controlled House is pressing on with investigations, with particular interest in the role of former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who may run for president in 2016.

Wait, what? A highly praised individual questions the official line that this was a protest, and is suddenly the victim of blatant retaliation and is told not to talk to Congress — and none of this sheds any light on whether the Obama administration misled the public?

As for the work of that “independent” review board — convened by Hillary Clinton — Hicks was interviewed by that board, but never had a chance to read their conclusions before they were issued. Somehow, oddly enough, the board didn’t tell us everything we heard about today. And that board has faced criticism for not interviewing other key players — not that you would know that from reading today’s L.A. Times article.

Three paragraphs from the end of the piece, this tidbit is neatly buried: “Hicks said he was disgusted when he heard U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice say on television Sept. 16 that the attacks stemmed from a protest over an anti-Islamic video. There was no protest, Hicks said.” So that revelation is about as far from prominent as you can get.

What about the pressure on Hicks to keep his mouth shut? And the retaliation he suffered when he did not?

Yup, you guessed it. As remarkable as it ought to seem given that this story was written by an ostensibly professional journalist working for a large metropolitan newspaper, there is not a single, solitary word in the article about any of that.

It’s amazing that the US media has any credibility at this point. They are actively ignoring what is one of the biggest scandals in recent political history. The media is supposed to watch those in power, challenge them and hold them to account. 

But it seems that only applies to some administrations, not to others.

%d bloggers like this: