The Motley Fool Discussion Boards

Previous Page

Politics & Current Events / Political Asylum

URL:  http://boards.fool.com/as-to-why-obama-lied-in-the-weeks-following-30535263.aspx

Subject:  Re: Benghazi: We have an answer Date:  2/10/2013  6:16 PM
Author:  anniesdad Number:  1858852 of 1976762

As to why Obama lied in the weeks following Benghazi AND why there was no attempted rescue mission.

Obama: The story of a failed CIC and leader!



Conservative media are pushing selectively cropped footage of Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and General Martin Dempsey as evidence that President Obama was "AWOL" the night of the Benghazi attack. In reality, Panetta and Dempsey emphasized that Obama's involvement was appropriate and that the White House was kept "well-informed" throughout the night.

After outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta testified before Congress on the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, The Weekly Standard selectively cropped a portion of his testimony and blogged that Panetta found Obama to be "absent" the night of the assault. The Weekly Standard's attack on Obama subsequently made the conservative media rounds to Fox Nation, The Drudge Report, The Daily Caller, Breitbart.com, and Fox News.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/02/07/conservative-media-s...



Then there's Benghazi -- "the story the mainstream media would not cover," as Rubin absurdly put it. It isn't necessary to document the exhaustive degree to which Benghazi was and is covered by the mainstream press. Rubin's real issue is that the media coverage does not comport to the conclusion she and other conservatives arrived at regarding Benghazi: that the administration engaged in some sort of election season cover-up of the attack. It's easier and more self-serving, however, simply to allege that the media ignored Benghazi, as it allows right wingers like Rubin to pretend that they're fighting institutional corruption, and not merely on a witch hunt.

"Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta testified today that the president was absent during the Benghazi, Libya, attack(s)" wrote Rubin. That's completely false. The Associated Press article Rubin links to -- remember, the mainstream media refuses to cover Benghazi -- reported that Panetta told the Senate Armed Services Committee that he and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs were meeting with Obama when they learned of the attack, and "the president told them to deploy forces as quickly as possible." Per the AP: "Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., questioned whether Panetta spoke again to Obama after that first meeting. The Pentagon chief said no but that the White House was in touch with military officials and aware of what was happening."

But Rubin won't be deterred: "It is one thing to say that the president's appointees missed cables or got their talking points mixed up," she wrote. "It is quite another to say the president was AWOL during the entire episode and then went to Las Vegas the next day for a campaign event." That's not what Panetta said. Not even close. But why should we expect anything different from Rubin? She lies. A lot. And her lies about Benghazi are egregious to the point that her own paper is cleaning up after her.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/02/08/jennifer-rubins-lies...
Copyright 1996-2014 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us