Regardless of who wins the election, the entire Benghazi affair will be investigated thoroughly, and will be big news for a long time to come. Of course with such an impending controversy, the news media SHOULD be all over it. They are not covering it because they are in the tank for re electing Obama, and they wouldn't want to do anything that would hurt his chances. Deep down they know they are being derelict to their profession by conducting themselves in this manner. With that being said...mark my words...at some point in the weeks following the election, there will be some minor new revelation, and the news media is going to be all over it, and are going to pretend from that point forward like they were all over this story from the beginning. This is as predictable as the sun rising in the morning. You heard it here first.
It will be good in any case to know what happened and exactly how it happened. But anyone using this as a political football, should be shamed for it.
Interesting and appreciable perspective FAW. Indeed, it would be encouraging to know the details, primarily to prevent future similar incidences. But I don't think it will be forthcoming, not for general populace consumption at least. *sigh* Honestly... sadly, I see the story slipping quietly into the night, much like Fast and Furious. Regards
EVERYTHING is a political football...dont wrap yourself in feigned righteous indignation. In the words of Rahm Emanuel and many that preceeded him, "never let a tragedy go to waste". The fact of the matter is that elections with an incumbant are in large part about evaluating how someone has performed, and if that performance includes an avoidable tragedy and or a cover up for political purposes, that has an impact on elections. A media that refuses to adequately cover a tragedy until AFTER an election, is not doing their job.
Its.. Never let a crisis go to waste.. and its an ancient Chinese proverb. The media has been on the Benghazi story 24/7.
Absolutely i can stand being wrong...unfortunately it simply doesnt apply in this case. Perhaps in your world of fairy dust and unicorns politics are wholesome and idealistic, but for those of us in the real world, we see politics for what they actually are. Show me a righteous, honest presidential candidate, and I will show you a loser.
This story has been a ballyhooed news item everywhere. Every network and news and opinion cable has talked at length over the minute details. And the "scandal" aspects are simply hokum. Turning down a request for more security checkers is NOT "refusing to protect ambassadors" - they work in hiring and checking local workers, responding to Americans having local problems and processing visas (which is much of what consulates ARE FOR). And you won't see much "news" about the plans the consulate makes with Libya's security forces to handle these situations, but those almost certainly will NOT be publicized.
When this issue blows up, probably leading to at minimum the resignation of Hillary ( i said when not if), I am going to happily bump this thread, and your words are going to look foolish and short sighted.
When one side of the political divide has all the power over an event, then any failures of that event come to rest on the party bungling it. I fail to see how you avoid politics when all investigation involves investigating only one party.
That may very well be true, but in the larger context of this thread it is fairly irrelevant. My point in saying that was that somebody fairly high up the chain is likely to pay a price for the eventual outcome.
