Gay Patriot Header Image

Marionettes of the Times (& broadcast networks)

Yesterday, Bruce offered both the details of the attack on our consulate in Benghazi and a list of questions the White House refused to answer, questions, it appears, journalists for the “three major TV new networks” are failing to ask.

Summarizing the three elements of the scandal, John Hinderaker finds it

. . . hard to imagine how any newspaper could ignore, or even try to downplay, a story of this magnitude. Yet, if you rely on the New York Times for information, you know little about the battle of Benghazi, and nothing at all about the explosive account that emerged on Friday, fueled in part by the anger of the father of one of the dead American operatives.

John notes that the so-called paper of record “trying to ignore the charge that the Obama administration rejected calls for help from embattled troops on the ground in Benghazi” and asks if “the Times [is] always so reluctant to cover a foreign policy scandal in the last days of a presidential campaign”.  Read the whole thing.

Given this does seem a perfect image of the White House press corps:

(H/t: Former left-leaning lesbian on Facebook.)



  1. those marionettes remind me very much of a scene from the movie Chicago, but then again one of them looks like “Charlie”

    Comment by StraightAussie — October 29, 2012 @ 5:31 am - October 29, 2012

  2. I find marionettes rather creepy-so they would fit right in with the Obama worship.

    As angry as I am at Obama for his mishandling of Benghazi, I am almost as pissed at the press for failing to do their job.

    Comment by Just Me — October 29, 2012 @ 7:38 am - October 29, 2012

  3. I am angry with everyone in the press and in the Obama administration. WHO FAILED TO DO THEIR DANG JOB. And in the case of the Administration LIED about a stupid video all while bragging about KILLING BIN LADEN, really of these two which would be more likely to incite radical Islamists? Spit.

    Comment by TexasMom2012 — October 29, 2012 @ 8:33 am - October 29, 2012

  4. Summarizing the three elements of the scandal, John Hinderaker finds…

    Just FTR, the 3 elements would mean:

    1) the administration’s failure to provide adequate security for our personnel there, even after they had requested heightened security; 2) the administration’s attempt to deceive the American people about the nature of the Benghazi attack, by falsely characterizing it as a spontaneous mob uprising prompted by a YouTube video; and 3) as of the last two or three days, the administration’s alleged refusal to provide military reinforcements for the tiny handful of operatives who tried to fight off a much larger force of terrorists, two of whom were eventually killed after help failed to arrive.

    Yeah, this is bigger than Watergate. But so was Fast and Furious. The difference? Obama is not a Republican.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 29, 2012 @ 9:05 am - October 29, 2012

  5. I was telling my husband the other day that for fall the journalists who want to be like Woodward and Bernstein, here is a story to make their career and none of them are touching it.

    Comment by Louise B — October 29, 2012 @ 10:45 am - October 29, 2012

  6. none of them are touching it

    including Woodward and Bernstein.

    Comment by heliotrope — October 29, 2012 @ 11:25 am - October 29, 2012

  7. No journalists are touching it because Obama is the first black president with a D by his name.

    I am convinced if any president-democrat or republican had this happen on their watch the media would have been hounding them 24 7 on this.

    The media is derelict in their duty.

    Comment by Just Me — October 29, 2012 @ 11:42 am - October 29, 2012

  8. The comment section of our local papers are filled with liberals who think Faux News has made the whole thing up and the “film” was the cause of the attack. They also think the filmmaker should be punished for making the film.

    They find it unbelievable that Obama could go to bed while the attack was being broadcast live in the situation room.

    Crazy liberals !!!

    Comment by TnnsNE1 — October 29, 2012 @ 1:25 pm - October 29, 2012

  9. To believe it, they need to see it on TV. (Hence, the role of the media.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 29, 2012 @ 1:30 pm - October 29, 2012

  10. McCain on TV: “We now know there was no demonstration, there was no mob…”

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 29, 2012 @ 1:33 pm - October 29, 2012

  11. @TnnsE1 those people are not liberals. They are Leftists.. A liberal is one who is not mean thinking and is in favour of freedoms, especially free trade, and less government interference.

    These Leftists like to be called liberal because the word has nice connotations. They do not deserve such a name.

    Comment by StraightAussie — October 29, 2012 @ 3:04 pm - October 29, 2012

  12. Mark Steyn, not to be missed as usual:

    …go[ing] far beyond the instinctive secretiveness to which even democratic governments are prone[,] The Obama administration created a wholly fictional storyline, and devoted its full resources to maintaining it.


    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 29, 2012 @ 3:50 pm - October 29, 2012

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.