There are plenty of people in the media who seem to think that the latest revelations in the never-ending Benghazi scandal are really crucial, finally pinning the Obama administration down for sending out bogus talking points.
The so-called “smoking gun” email does no such thing (FAIR Blog, 5/1/14). But leave it to Fox host Bill O’Reilly to completely exaggerate and misrepresent the story. Here’s how he kicked off his April 30 show:
Well, now we know now there is no question that the White House misrepresented the terror attack on September 11, 2012, in Benghazi, Libya.
How does the email in question show that? It doesn’t. But O’Reilly seems to think otherwise. He plays a clip of national security adviser Susan Rice saying, right after the attacks, that they appeared to have been a protest responding to a notorious anti-Muslim video.
In O’Reilly’s mind, the newly released email shows otherwise:
The watchdog group Judicial Watch released the damning truth…. A memo written by senior White House adviser Ben Rhodes dated September 14 says that Ms. Rice was prepped to “underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video and not a broader failure of policy.” Again, that despite CIA people in Libya and, perhaps, Defense Secretary Panetta telling the president and the White House the video had little to do with the murders.
But as has been pretty well documented, there was plenty of first-hand information linking the Benghazi attack to protests over the video (FAIR Blog, 10/17/12). The memo reiterated that view, and Rice repeated as much on television. In context, the reference in the Rhodes memo to “these protests” clearly is not limited to Libya, but includes ongoing violent protests in places like Egypt and Yemen, where no one has questioned that hostilities were sparked by the video.
O’Reilly scorched the media for missing the supposedly damning new revelations—singling out USA Today for getting it right (which, as Jim Naureckas shows, it did not). “Only USA Today was honest and responsible, putting the Benghazi e-mail story on the front page,” he said.
O’Reilly finished by saying this is “proof the American press is dishonest—period.”
He’s got a point. His segment proved that at least one person in the press is really dishonest.
You bomb a country, throw it into chaos, sponsor its overthrow by fundamentalists and tribal folks, and then send your ambassador into the most rebellious part of that Islamic country on the anniversary of 9/11. Well, that’s the recipe for a death such as the one Chris Stevens suffered that evening, firebombed and suffocated at a CIA compound the US rented from a hated local rich man.
Chris was himself a former gunrunner with the CIA during the initial stages of the US- sponsored rebellion against Gaddafi, so all the armed rebel factions knew of him and his whereabouts. Many were disappointed that their blood and toil saw none of victory’s spoils. That Hillary let him work as an ambassador amidst the turmoil her unconstitutional war created invited disaster. |
The left has so far been hypocritical in giving Clinton a pass on Benghazi, and you don’t have to buy into FOX news to see the her role in creating the circumstances that led to the ambassador’s death.
Because we all know that the Right Wing never gets intelligence wrong the first time…
I think Bill IS over stating the importance of that point.But but but….The seminal questions still remain unanswered.Our ambassador was begging for beefed up security,and instead his contingent of marines was REMOVED!Leaving a few(handful)of men to guard what was arguably thee most dangerous spot to us at that time with no assets on hand to help if trouble came.This on 911.England agreed with our ambassador so much so that they returned their staff- leaving their empty embassy under heavy guard.Britney Spears or Justin Bieber has about the same amount of security next to them when they travel to the supermarket as did our ambassador to Libya on that fateful day…That is the first question that must be answered.And heads have to roll.My guess is that head is Hilary’s.And THAT is one of the reasons for the endless lies and smokescreens.To protect her electable ass.Next question is where the hell was the president during the ten hours of the battle.We know he was informed as it began ,and briefed after it was over.We know he never entered the situation room as our people burned.My honest belief is that he went to bed.So here we sit .Sifting through the obvious coverup that was done to delay Obama answering anything concerning this debacle till the election was won.And now to protect Hilary(and to a lesser degree obama) we continue with this charade.But the coverup I believe was conducted by mid level flunkies.And adopted by higher ups as the easy road.Now there is a scramble to allow out information at a trickle so the public can absorb it ,and forget it.Because sorry Bill O and the rest of you at FOX…the cover up is small fish.Get back to the point
I think Michel E is Bill Reilly Love Child. Same (lack) of Intelligence, same (made up) facts.
Padre I dont watch him….but Im so sick of NOT hearing anything from this bunch.This is not going away.We need a special prosecutor.And by God they are going to be compelled to answer every question put to them.Hilary,Barrack etc……If not jail may be in order.