The forgotten slaughters of the innocents
Newsflash: There is nothing new or unique about the barbaric soldiers of Allah executing premeditated attacks on our young. History teaches us there is no appeasing the unappeasable.
A senior Army strategist believes the reaction to the evidence that the 9/11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi was an act of terrorism shows that senior members of President Barack Obama's administration are clearly trying to avoid political damage.
A government document has revealed that the White House was told that a terrorist group claimed responsibility just two hours after the U.S. Consulate was attacked. A State Department email was sent to intelligence officials and to the White House situation room, but White House spokesman Jay Carney says it does not tell the full story. Likewise, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says the claim failed to provide definitive evidence.
Still, the document could fuel Republican efforts to show that the White House knew it was a terrorist attack, while the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations reportedly felt it looked more like the attack stemmed from a protest.
Lt. Col. Bob Maginnis (USA-Ret.), who now serves as senior fellow for national security at the Family Research Council (FRC), says what happened on September 11, 2012, was clearly a terrorist attack.
"The facts are that with the intelligence activities that we had ongoing in Benghazi, we knew almost immediately that this was a terrorist action," he states, "and yet they [the administration] continued to obfuscate the truth here for probably political reasons."
But according to the Pentagon advisor, the administration's damage control is beginning to unravel.
"People are becoming very suspicious of the credibility of the administration and its primary spokespersons, whether it be the president, or the vice president, or the secretary of state, certainly the U.N. ambassador, and others," Maginnis asserts.
He adds that the Benghazi scandal's effect on the presidential election may depend on how much the American electorate learns about it from the mainstream media.
Media Research Center notes that the morning after the story broke regarding the State Department email, the three network morning shows "weren't leaping to follow up." According to MRC, ABC and CBS combined devoted just over a minute to the story, while NBC completely ignored it. In contrast, "controversial comments" by a Republican Senate candidate in Indiana drew more than seven and half minutes of coverage.
That, says MRC, is indicative how those morning shows strive to "minimize pressure on Team Obama" -- and are more interested in "pursuing a story that might be injurious" to GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney.
News stories each weekday from reporters you can trust without the liberal bias found in much of "mainstream" media.