I first became interested in journalism after watching the movie, "All the President's Men." This 1976 movie chronicled the investigative journalism of Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, whose series of articles brought down the presidency of Richard M. Nixon.
To me, these journalists were American heroes. They had the courage to ask the tough questions, to investigate beyond the quotes and sound bites provided by the Nixon Administration to report that a coverup of a third rate burgularly at the Watergate Hotel went all the way up to the President of the United States. President Nixon wasn't involved in the original crime, but he was deeply involved in the attempt to hide the administration's involvement in the burgulary.
In the past month and a half, I couldn't help to think back to those golden days when journalists believed their jobs were to act as the Fourth Estate in American politics, to keep our government honest and to take everything government officials said with great sketicism. There was a healthy distance between journalists and government officials, with neither side truly trusting the other. Where are those journalists today when it's clear that officials in the Obama Administration are lying about what they knew about the attack on our embassy in Benghazi, Libya, and when they knew it?
Just as the original burgulary did not involve President Nixon, the failure to ensure proper security at the Benghazi embassy in all likelihood never made its way to President Obama. But just like Watergate, the attempt to make the attack appear to be anything but a well-planned attack by terrorists in all likelihood did involve President Obama and his closest staff.
Facing a close election, the last thing this President and his administration wanted to see reported on the televisions of American voters was a terrorist attack killing four of our own, including an ambassador, on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. For this reason, the Obama Administration labeled the violence as a spontaneous attack by demonstrators angered by a YouTube video. Obama Administration officials, including the President himself, Press Secretary Jay Carney and our Ambassador to the U.N., Susan Rice, continued to perpetuate this lie for at least two weeks following the attacks.
But then more information began to emerge from the shadows.
E mails showed that the White House was told in the hours after the attack that it wasn't a spontaneous demonstration, including that a terrorist group had claimed reponsibility for the attacks. More details revealed that real-time video was being watched at the White House and the State Department, showing as events unfolded that this was a well-planned attack and not the result of a spontaneous demonstration. In the past few days, even more information has come to light, including that the Navy Seals working for the CIA who responded to the attack at our embassy asked for military support, but that this assistance was denied. Yesterday, the CIA released a statement saying that no one at the CIA had denied any request for assistance from those Seals, which in all likelihood means that someone at the Department of Defense vetoed the request. When the Department of Defense denies a request for military assistance at a U.S. embassy under attack, this decision would most likely would have involved the President of the United States. Military experts have reported this weekend that the President would clearly have approved or denied any decision to send in military assistance.
Think about this logically. If a U.S. embassy is under attack, if military assistance is requested and if live video is available to see what is happening on the ground, do you not think the President himself would be aware of what is happening and involved in the decision-making? Absolutely.
Sadly, the mainstream news media, other than Fox News, has turned a blind eye to what is clearly an attempt to deceive the American people. Brian Williams of NBC News, one of the few journalists who have been given any access at all to the President in recent weeks, lobbed one "softball" question about Benghazi to the President during an interview this week. The President deflected the question and Williams moved on to other topics.
In an interview on Fox News this weekend, Bob Woodward (yes, the same Bob Woodward who broke the Watergate story in the 1970s) said that the way the President has answered questions should have raised red flags for any credible reporter. Essentially, the President has said that voters really don't want to hear about Benghazi during this election, which, according to Woodward, means that the President really doesn't want to talk about this issue and may have something to hide.
This is exactly why credible journalists should be asking these questions of the President and key members of his staff.
From all indications, our President had a bad case of electile dysfunction -- afraid to call the violence a "terrorist attack" and afraid to send in military support to raise the profile of a tense situation so close to the election. As a result, four Americans are dead and the American people have been deceived by this President for weeks.
Just as Watergate brought down a President four decades ago, Benghazi could and should end this President's reign.
No comments:
Post a Comment