Fox is Sensationalizing the Benghazi Coverup
by Tom
(NC)
Tom writes:
I find it interesting that Fox is the one really highlighting the Benghazi cover-up story.
They have a world-wide reputation for sensationalizing the news. That's why I don't normally watch them. Can't stand the hype.
Thanks for joining our conversation, Tom.
Fox News are the only ones covering this story in any detail, which is bigger than Watergate. If you do some research and look at the documents that have been produced, and listen to what government employees are saying, all these people can't be making this up.
Fox may be guilty of occasional sensationalism (who isn't - remember Chris "Chills up my Leg" Matthews?), so you take what they say with a grain of salt, and investigate. But at least they're letting you know about it.
The truth will eventually come out, but not before the election, which, of course, is the reason the rest of the media is not reporting it.
They have produced documents showing that Ambassador Stevens and his staff had been increasingly concerned about security and requesting additional security personnel for at least a month because of the volatile situation on the ground. They were in the process of making plans to move the diplomatic mission into the CIA Annex, where they would have a little more security. Unfortunately, they didn't do it fast enough.
I saw a Congressman who quoted a State Department official as saying that a phone call was received from Ambassador Stevens DURING the attack, requesting help.
And anyone who has ever been in the military will tell you that Panetta's statement about "not sending in troops till you know what's happening" is utter BS. That's exactly why those rapid response teams exist, and what they're trained for! That statement sends up a BIG red flag, because it's obviously a smoke screen.
The military community (at least the part I know) is up in arms, and the rest of the country should be, because this administration turned its back on Americans in
Then Obama is seen on TV in NJ saying, "We don't leave anyone behind." Tell that to the parents of Chris Stevens and Glen Doherty, and the widows and children of Sean Smith and Tyrone Woods, whose youngest child was only a few months old.
Obama used the SEALs' killing of bin Laden to bolster his campaign, and then turned his back when two former SEALs, whose job was security for an American diplomat (the President's surrogate in a foreign country) were taking enemy fire and requesting backup. There was a rapid response team ready to go, two hours away. The two SEALs fought for more than six hours before they were killed. Had the "normal" backup been provided, they would still be alive, and maybe the Ambassador, too. This administration has blood on its hands, and we'll get the truth eventually.
When the President says, "I told the military to do whatever was necessary to ensure the safety of our personnel," and his Secretary of Defense says, "The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the local area commander and I all agreed it was unwise to send in troops till we knew more about what was going on," and the "local area commander" is summarily relieved of command for deciding to send in troops anyway, you know that one or both of them are lying. If SecDef and CJCS had defied such an order by the President, they'd both be out of a job. Are they?
BTW, why would you want to watch a "news" show that is censoring what news you get to see? Don't you want to know what's really going on?
The difference between this and Watergate, besides the fact that four Americans were murdered by militant Islamists, is that this time, the American media is not doing its job. If Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein had been in the administration's pocket like today's media is, you likely would never have heard of Watergate, either.
If you didn't find what you're looking for, use the search bar below to search the site:
