“Democrats Should Care” About Benghazi and What The FOIA Revealed

Emails through the “Freedom of Information Act” through the behest of reporters from the NYT’s, the Washington Post, CNN, and MSNBC…. joking, via Judicial Watch show that the White House/Obama/Hillary (and others) Lied. The honest Democrat should ask him or herself, “At this point, what difference does it make?”

At a press conference on Nov. 14, 2012 President Obama stated that his Administration has provided all information regarding “what happened in Benghazi.”

  • “We have provided every bit of information that we have, and we will continue to provide information…,” the President told reporters, adding, “we will provide all the information that is available about what happened on that day…” and “I will put forward every bit of information that we have.”


Democrat columnist and pundit scolded fellow Democrats today on “Outnumbered” ~ Kirsten Powers says the Democrats’ behavior at the Benghazi hearing were, “Appalling!”

A lot of this is via Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit, I suggest after getting a taste of the consolidation here one follow up there. White House Spokesman Jay Carney told reporters on September 15, 2012 (http://youtu.be/O7VSkdj5IsI), four days after terrorists stormed the consulate in Benghazi and killed US Ambassador Chris Stevens, that the attack was fueled by a video… EVEN THOUGH it has been revealed that every one in the intelligence community knew it was a terrorist attack.

Brigadier General Robert Lovell, U.S. Air Force (Retired) told the House Oversight Committee today, under oath, that the military knew immediately Benghazi was terrorist attack and not a “protest gone awry.” Brigadier General Robert W. Lovell served as Deputy Director for Intelligence and Knowledge Development Directorate, United States Africa Command in the discharge of all Intelligence and Counterintelligence responsibilities as assigned by the Unified Command Plan.

♛ “Nor did we completely understand what we had in front of us, be it kidnapping, rescue, recovery, protracted hostile engagement, or any or all the above. But, what we did know quite early on was that this was a hostile action. This was not demonstration gone terrible awry. To the point of what happened, the facts led to the conclusion of a terrorist attack. The Africom J2 was focused on attribution. The attacks became attributable VERY SOON after the event.” 

And House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) blasted the Obama administration Thursday on Benghazi. The Obama administration misled the American people on Benghazi massacre blaming the attack on a YouTube video rather than terrorism. The White House crafted talking points blaming the video despite having knowledge that this was a planned terrorist attack on the US consulate.

“….But it comes in a week in which the American people have learned that you cannot believe what the White House says. You cannot believe what the spokespeople say. You cannot believe what the president says….” (http://youtu.be/kEHVQ0l6cX0)

Remember, the mainstream media (legacy media) has stalled this and swept this under the carpet. Judicial Watch is doing what reporters should be. This is what Sharyl Attkisson said of her former employer of 21-years:

Attkisson added in her interview with CNN’s “Reliable Sources” host Brian Stelter that while she never was discouraged from hard-hitting reports on the George W. Bush administration, when it came to her critical coverage of the Obama White House, CBS regularly balked.


“There are very sophisticated efforts to manipulate the images and the information that you see every day, in ways that you won’t recognize,” she said. “And I think we can all be a little more savvy about that.”


As for the differences between how CBS News brass treated and covered the Bush compared to the Obama administration, Attkisson noted that she “didn’t sense any resistance to doing stories that were perceived to be negative to the Bush administration by anybody ever.” But as for the Obama White House, she said “I have done stories that were not received well because people thought they would reflect poorly upon this administration.”

Attkisson went further, noting a “fairly well-discussed” topic inside CBS News “that there are some managers recently who have been so ideologically entrenched that there is a feeling and discussion that some of them, certainly not all of them, have a difficult time viewing a story that may reflect negatively upon government or the administration as a story of value.”

“So you’re saying they are liberal or Democrats?” Stelter asked.

“I don’t know what their registered party is, I just know that the tendency on the part of some of these managers who have key influences has been they never mind the stories that seem to, for example — and I did plenty of them — go against the grain of the Republican Party, but they do often seem to feel defensive about, almost, personally defensive about stories that could make the government look bad. Even if it’s something as simple as a government waste story that doesn’t pinpoint anybody in particularly and it takes on both parties. It seems as though some of them were sensitive about any story that might appear as though it criticizes the government.”

Read more: https://religiopoliticaltalk.com/sharyl-attkisson-and-she-explains-the-media-bias-to-cnn/#ixzz30TWHVg00