Glen Doherty, Tyrone Woods, Sean Smith, Christopher Stevens

I spent several years as a newspaperman and as an editor. I knew that papers slanted stories, leaving things in or out, and bringing emphasis on the points that favored their party.

But I have never seen anything like this. This is flagrant. This is criminal.

Watergate was such a big scandal that it has become the by-word for scandal — you just put “-gate” after a word, and the word becomes a scandal-word. (Imagine if Latin had a special case just for scandals, indicated by changing the word ending: nominative, accusative, dative, locative, scandalous.)

No one died in Watergate.

Then there is Benghazi. Four men died, and the administration watched the events in real time, and did nothing. There were operatives and military units within range, and they were ordered to stand down, commanded not to act to defend the Ambassador and the other dead men. Administration officials made the rounds of Sunday talk shows and blamed a video on YouTube. Then the Administration apologized to the attackers.

I have always known the press was slanted. But this is beyond that. This verges on aiding and abetting. This is an unambiguous deception visited on the public in the furtherance of an impeachable dereliction of public duty, perhaps even treason.

This is the biggest story of the year, of the last nine years. And yet where is there anyone covering it?

The Jerusalem Press is covering it. Here is the best story I have read so far:

GA: That was my next question; do you believe that this administration is smuggling weapons to Al-Qaeda?

CL: Well, not… I mean… The short answer is yes. They were working with the very same Al-Qaeda linked relationships in Libya to gather up and buy back and collect weapons from Gaddafi’s stock pile that were missing from the revolution in Libya last year and what it looks like is that they were shipping them onwards to Syria.

GA: Some of those weapons have already shown up in the Sinai on the southern border of Israel.

CL: Yes, they’ve gone to the Sinai and they’ve also gone to Mali and to other places in western Africa and they’ve also gone to Syria. That was the operation, that’s what they were doing.


  1. Comment by Sean Michael:

    Dear Mr. Wright:

    I completely agree! The Benghazi killings and Barry’s (sorry, Darrell!) involement in refusing to rescue Ambassador Stevens and the other Americans who died and the resulting shameless coverups are outrages which should be grounds for him being impeached and deposed from office.

    Only Fox News and NATIONAL REVIEW (and a few other similar outlets besides the JERUSALEM POST) has been giving any effort to exposing this outrage! Most of the rest of the media are court eunuchs desperately covering up Barry’s bungling. Sickening!

    I’ve already sent an email of protest to my House representative expressing my dissatisfaction with Barry’s confusing and contradictory “explanations” and urging an investigation of Benghazi. If enough other people will do the same that might force even Congressional Democrats to move.

    Sincerely, Sean M. Brooks

  2. Comment by Stephen J.:

    Weirdly, I can almost understand the notion of arming the al-Qaeda networks; if those arms are going to help the Syrian rebels against the al-Assad government, there could be argued to be some strategic value to tying up Iran’s only major ally in the region, as well as creating a safety valve to get al-Qaeda out of Libya. If I understand correctly (I may not; corrections welcomed) the Sunni-Wahhabi al-Qaeda forces are actually strongly opposed to the Shi’ite ayatollahs, and giving two enemies the opportunity to damage each other and further isolate Iran is not always bad strategy. (That this is basically only making the water deeper for Israel as a side-effect strikes me as unlikely to bother this administration much.)

    That said, if you’re going to do this kind of thing, it is not only unquestionably cowardly and immoral to simply throw your people to the wolves when things go wrong and pretend it’s “just one of those things”, it’s not even tactically sensible. Who truly thought that letting these men die would be easier to paper over than going to their rescue? And I wonder if that’s what is being covered up for more than anything else. The press could spin a story, maybe even to themselves, about the Administration making a Hard Decision where there Are No Good Choices; but having to spin to cover up stupidity is just too bitter a pill to swallow, after all their own real hopes that a “smarter”, more “sensitive” POTUS would do things differently and better.

    • Comment by SMM:

      Sorry to point it out, but it looks more like with connected dots that the administration wanted to “get rid” of Amb. Stevens using the “riled up crowds”. Maybe Ty Woods and his partner screwed that up by disobeying orders and rescuing Stevens (for a while) to the CIA post. Conjecture, but with all the “stand downs” … ?

      • Comment by Stephen J.:

        No apology needed at all; I’m always open to learning something I don’t know.

        That said, I have a harder time believing that the administration actively connived to engineer Stevens’ death than I do believing that they passively decided the chance of saving him wasn’t high enough to justify the risk of failing the attempt, given they had (so they thought) a convenient scapegoat at hand. One thing that has struck me about the Obama administration is that they are even more risk-averse than most politicians: they commit to almost nothing until they are absolutely convinced its cost-benefit ratio will be in their favour, or that the cost-benefit ratio of not being seen to do something will be unacceptably bad.

    Leave a Reply