Posted by Tina
The American Spectator has an excellent article this week comparing coverage on Benghazi, Iran Contra, and Watergate. Anyone who was not around during Watergate or Iran contra will find this information useful in terms of history and current events as they are presented by media. Those interested in media bias will find it very interesting:
Question: How is Benghazi different from Watergate and Iran-Contra? The obvious answer: the media. Liberal journalists turned Watergate and Iran-Contra into gigantic national scandals by their consistent, relentless pursuit of both stories; to the contrary, they are consistently, relentlessly ignoring Benghazi.
The media’s treatment of Watergate needs no explanation here. The press detested Richard Nixon unlike any modern president. Sure, the liberal media went after George W. Bush, but nothing like the way it attacked Richard Nixon. Liberals’ hatred of Nixon was pathological. It dated to Nixon’s work in exposing Alger Hiss. As Nixon would say at the end of his life, the Hiss-Chambers trial forever forged a legion of unwavering Nixon enemies on the left. I’m not saying that Richard Nixon was an angel, but if you want to understand Watergate, you need to understand the hatred of Nixon by the liberal media.
The media’s feelings about Ronald Reagan were not quite the same, but nasty nonetheless. Liberal journalists demonized Reagan, calling him everything from an idiot to a nuclear warmonger. They caricatured Reagan as a dawdling old fool who wanted to blow up the world and who disliked the homeless, the poor, minorities, and on and on. They blamed Ragan for everything from greed to AIDS. And they searched diligently for a Watergate-like scandal to run Reagan out of the White House, as they had Nixon.
The operative words are “searched diligently.” CBS, NBC, ABC, the New York Times, the Washington Post, NPR, and the usual suspects looked everywhere for something — gee, anything — to hurt Reagan. Being political partisans first and journalists second, they dug furiously for their Watergate. And they thought they had it in Iran-Contra….(continues)
The contrasts here are stark and telling. It should make all Americans angry that those tasked with investigating and monitoring our government have such an obvious bias. I hope you will take the time to read Paul Kengor’s excellent piece.
“How is Benghazi different from Watergate and Iran-Contra? The obvious answer: the media.”
Indeed. Both the covert Iran-Contra operation and Watergate burglary cover-up had been running for months before the media tweaked. Whereas, the Benghazi attack has been covered from day one … been a Congressional hearing already. But, after raking some civil servants over the coals in public, the Congress seems to feel no need to pursue the matter further. Why do you suppose that is?
The final line says it all — “For liberals in the media, however, corpses in Libya get in the way of their primary duty: getting Barack Obama reelected.”
Pie we can be encouraged only by the falling ratings that leftist media continues to have…we sure can’t depend on people like Libby waking up. Someone put it nicely regarding the media…paraphrasing…it would be like saying Woodward and Bernstein had conspired to make Nixon look like an innocent victim.
Libby your reckoning of the events are severely lacking in detail in all cases. Memory loss?
And “tweaked? Oh yeah…Nixon was “tweaked” by the media and Congress…same with Reagan! And your baby boy so far? Tucked into bed with a nice warm blankey and his baa baa.
Why do you suppose that is?
You mean besides the obstructionists, apologists, and cowards that refuse to be forthcoming or to act to get to the bottom of the matter? I’d say next Tuesday. And yes, its disgusting.
We will continue to report what is being uncovered.
Here is the former Navy Seals SOS web site I got the information from I posted to the other Benghazi article. Be sure to check out their Mission and About Us pages too.
There is a new article with links posted today worth reading.
=====
Former SEAL: Obama Never Gave ‘Cross-Border Authority’ Orders
by Tony Lee | 2012-11-02
As more information comes to the light about the Obama administration’s Benghazi cover-up, a former Navy SEAL officer who once took a military detachment to Libya suggests President Barack Obama was either AWOL — essentially an “empty chair” — or deliberately denied Americans under siege in Benghazi the aid they needed by not authorizing “cross-border authority,” without which rescue operations could have taken place.
Read More…
http://specialoperationsspeaks.com/index
Have You Heard About the Rush Limbaugh Brian Williams Feud?
After teeing up, Limbaugh then blasted Williams and NBC over the networks lack of coverage on the Benghazi scandal.
Let me ask you: Have you watched your network lately? Limbaugh asked, a question directed at Williams. Have you watched your sister or brother network, MSNBC, lately? You guys have your own mess to clean up there. Because you and your colleagues, youre not only destroying news and journalism in this country, youre not even doing your job.
He continued: Does Benghazi ring a bell to anyone at NBC? Does the name mean anything? I know its not as cool as Iran-Contra or Watergate or Katrina those all involve Republicans. But you know, Brian, four Americans died, as it turns out, unnecessarily. They were murdered. And people were trying to get answers, and NBC doesnt care. NBC is helping to cover it up.
Full story and video here:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/have-you-heard-about-the-rush-limbaugh-brian-williams-feud-this-will-get-you-caught-up/
Yes, we should all listen to Rush Limbaugh’s advice about integrity in journalism. This from the man who one ludicrously reported that Obama had sent the military to “invade” Uganda in order to “wipe out Christians” there.
Give me a break.
The main difference between these cases is that there is no evidence that Obama actually did anything wrong, while there was evidence that Nixon and Reagan had done something wrong.
Re: “Yes, we should all listen to Rush Limbaugh’s advice about integrity in journalism. This from the man who one ludicrously reported that Obama had sent the military to “invade” Uganda in order to “wipe out Christians” there.”
Another big fat CHRIS FAIL. More proof that our favorite poor dumb bastard Chris has no integrity whatsoever, much less sense. Poor Chris must be going completely nuts over the possibility that the reign of his fuhrer Obama may soon be over.
What Rush Limbaugh actually said, in Rush’s inimitable style, in context, was quite revealing about the effects Obama’s half-assed and misguided Uganda operation —
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2011/10/14/obama_invades_uganda_targets_christians
So, who is closer to the truth? Rush himself in his own words or some boiling angry progressive loser dork with a chip on his shoulder presuming to speak for him? 😀
Re: “The main difference between these cases is that there is no evidence that Obama actually did anything wrong”
Chris, you got me and the good folks of Post Scripts there. Touche’!
It is time to admit defeat to Chris’ rapier intelligence.
Yep, fer sure dude. Obama did nothing wrong by doing nothing to intervene, prevent, rescue, or stop the destruction of a US embassy and the horrific murder of the staff.
Nothing wrong at all.
Damn, am I and Post Scripts a bunch of pathetic imbeciles or what?
Pie, are you actually saying that Rush was “close to the truth” when he claimed that Obama “invaded Uganda” in order to “target Christians?” And I am a “poor dumb bastard” for criticizing him for it?
When will the managers of this site call out Pie Guevara for his abusive and extremists comments?
Pie: “What Rush Limbaugh actually said, in Rush’s inimitable style, in context, was quite revealing about the effects Obama’s half-assed and misguided Uganda operation –”
I honestly don’t understand, Pie. How could Rush’s words be “revealing about the effects [of] Obama’s half-assed and misguided Uganda operation,” when it’s clear in context that Rush knows absolutely nothing about the operation of which he is speaking?
The context makes it much worse. He claimed that Obama had “invaded” Uganda, which was not true. He called it a “war,” which it wasn’t. He claimed that the goal was to “target Christians,” which is crazy. He even praised the Lord’s Resistance Army, a brutal gang of terrorists and rapists!
It isn’t even until the very end that Rush finally displays the foggiest idea of why troops were sent to Uganda in the first place:
“Is that right? The Lord’s Resistance Army is being accused of really bad stuff? Child kidnapping, torture, murder, that kind of stuff? Well, we just found out about this today. We’re gonna do, of course, our due diligence research on it. But nevertheless we got a hundred troops being sent over there to fight these guys — and they claim to be Christians.”
So he basically admitted that during the first 95% of his segment, he was making false accusations against the president and military while praising the enemy without having any clue what he was talking about!
In the Founders’ era, Rush’s words would have qualified as sedition. Luckily, we have stronger freedom of speech than we did then. But that doesn’t mean so-called conservatives should defend such disgusting behavior or claim there is any “truth” to his words at all.
Chris: “So he basically admitted that during the first 95% of his segment, he was making false accusations against the president and military while praising the enemy without having any clue what he was talking about!”
Yeah Chris he did…he ADMITTED it in plain English and his listeners understood, completely, that he had erred. The man is human, he made a mistake and he admitted it but that apparently isn’t good enough for you.
In my opinion your hatred guides your judgement and that renders your opinion useless to any discussion regarding the integrity, honesty, and decency of Rush Limbaugh.
So, despite the actual transcript I guess Chris is going to stick by his patently, idiotically fallacious statement that Rush Limbaugh ludicrously reported that Obama had sent the military to “invade” Uganda in order to “wipe out Christians” there.”
Hey, whatever floats your boat, Chris. Just know this, Rush will continue to be successful in radio while you will continue to be an insignificant progressive twerp venting his spleen in the Post Scripts blog.
In any case, I maintain that Obama’s Uganda policy was (and is) half-assed and repeats mistakes of the past.
Chris, let us take a deep breath together and relax. I want pause to take the time to especially thank you for what must be the single most brilliant statement you have ever posted in comments section of Post Scripts —
“The main difference between these cases is that there is no evidence that Obama actually did anything wrong”
May I suggest you send that in a sympathy card to the grieving families of the dead abandoned by Obama who did exactly that for the weeks (months) of requests and warnings ahead and while the attack was in progress — nothing.
Tina: “Yeah Chris he did…he ADMITTED it in plain English and his listeners understood, completely, that he had erred. The man is human, he made a mistake and he admitted it but that apparently isn’t good enough for you.”
It’s a mistake no rational person would ever make in the first place, Tina. Why would Rush assume Obama was invading Uganda to “wipe out Christians,” claim the LRA was a “Christian” group and report that to millions of listeners without doing five seconds of research first?
If Romney becomes president, does that mean I can falsely accuse him of invading a country in order to kill Christians, and defend the terrorist group he’s sending in troops to fight, as long as I say at the end that I was “mistaken?” Somehow I doubt you’d be sympathetic to that behavior from me, Tina. If someone had done that to President Bush, you would have called them a traitor. (And you would have been right to.)
You’re also intentionally downplaying the effect Rush’s words had on his listeners. You know–because I’ve explained it many times–that conservative Sen. James Inhofe had to take the Senate floor to correct the misinformation spread by Limbaugh. Clearly, there were members of Rush’s audience who thought his information was accurate.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2011-10-17/pdf/CREC-2011-10-17-pt1-PgS6574.pdf#page=1
“In my opinion your hatred guides your judgement and that renders your opinion useless to any discussion regarding the integrity, honesty, and decency of Rush Limbaugh.”
You’re blind. I am not the one who falsely accused the president of invading a foreign country in order to wipe out Christians, siding with a brutal gang of mass murderers over my president and my military. Only hatred can explain such behavior, Tina. No one would do that to a person unless they truly hated them. That you would defend such actions and insult those who think they are wrong is reprehensible. How you can say I am the one with hate in my heart for criticizing Rush Limbaugh’s hateful lies is a mystery to me. It is completely topsy-turvy.
Pie: “So, despite the actual transcript I guess Chris is going to stick by his patently, idiotically fallacious statement that Rush Limbaugh ludicrously reported that Obama had sent the military to “invade” Uganda in order to “wipe out Christians” there.””
I still don’t understand. The transcript proves exactly what I have stated–Rush Limbaugh made exactly that claim. Did you read it? It’s in the freaking headline. If you have a substantive argument, present it, but I’m not sure you can disprove what is right there in black and white. Maybe that’s why you so often feel the need to stick to mindless insults.
“In any case, I maintain that Obama’s Uganda policy was (and is) half-assed and repeats mistakes of the past.”
How so? It should be noted that, as Sen. Inhofe points out toward the end of the transcript I posted above, every single member of the Senate voted for the deployment of non-combat troops to Uganda. This was a rare show of bipartisanship and, in my opinion, our government did the right thing in this matter. I’d actually like to know why you disagree; if you can keep it civil, please respond.
Chris: “Why would Rush assume Obama was invading Uganda to “wipe out Christians,” claim the LRA was a “Christian” group and report that to millions of listeners without doing five seconds of research first?”
Maybe because the radical in chief has done a number of other things that make the possibility, crazy as it sounds, totally possible.
“If Romney becomes president, does that mean I can falsely accuse him of invading a country in order to kill Christians, and defend the terrorist group he’s sending in troops to fight, as long as I say at the end that I was “mistaken?”
Of course you can! And I would hope that people reading or listening would have the good sense and forgiveness of heart to accept the acknowledgement of error as sincere.
“I am not the one who falsely accused the president of invading a foreign country…”
You are the one who refuses to drop it. who continues to use it like a hammer as if no other person in the history of the world ever made a mistake…including Obama who you will (or have) vote for even though he has lied countless times about his record, about the past administration and about certain segments of our society.
I may decide to join Pie in his fast….
Tina: “Maybe because the radical in chief has done a number of other things that make the possibility, crazy as it sounds, totally possible.”
So ridiculous, you should be ashamed to say it. President Obama has never done anything to make it plausible that he would invade Uganda to wipe out Christians. If you believe that’s plausible, you have abandoned all reason at the alter of partisan hatred.
And for the record, I just voted for Jill Stein.
Chris you are the only one who thinks Rush, or I, “believe” Obama would do it. A suspicion or fear can contain elements of disbelief just as easily as belief. Talking about things in the news is what Rush does.
I am committed to defeating the President because I love the country and I can’t stand the destruction that follows in his wake. This small “corrected” error, that took up mere minutes of air time over four years, would not be in anyone’s consciousness EXCEPT you feel the need to continuously bring it up as if it made some huge difference! It doesn’t!
Thank you for throwing your vote in the toilet.
Tina, it isn’t just one “error.” It’s part of a pattern of lies and deceit from the biggest blowhard on the radio.
I don’t feel I threw my vote away. This is California; Obama will win our state, no problem. I decided I could not vote for a man who has continued the worst excesses of Bush’s war on terror in order to suspend civil liberties. And I could not vote for Mitt Romney, who would do the same thing. If I lived in a swing state I would swallow my pride and vote Obama, but I’m not worried about Romney winning my state, so I voted my conscience.
Evidently Chris is blind to the fact Rush corrected himself.
“Evidently Chris is blind to the fact Rush corrected himself.”
I addressed that already.