#1 Krauthammer Tells 'Liberal Pals' on PBS 'I Canít Believe You're Covering for the Admi09-29-2012, 01:34 PM
Krauthammer Tells 'Liberal Pals' on PBS 'I Canít Believe You're Covering for the Administration' on Libya
Syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer gave quite a scolding Friday to his fellow panelists on PBS's Inside Washington.
During a discussion about the murder of our ambassador in Libya, Krauthammer said, "I just want to respond to my liberal pals over here. I canít believe you guys are covering for the administration on the Susan Rice thing when they themselves said five days later it was obviously a terror attack" (video follows with transcript and commentary):
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: I just want to respond to my liberal pals over here. I canít believe you guys are covering for the administration on the Susan Rice thing when they themselves said five days later it was obviously a terror attack. Obviously, everybody could see it. So why for a week did the administration pretend that it was a demonstration?
NINA TOTENBERG, NPR: Well, it wouldnít be a very good plan if they were pretending and then saying something different later.
KRAUTHAMMER: Itís a good plan because the longer you draw it out, the less that the media and the country will care about it. Itís an issue, you seize of the issue right away, and itís worked. Who talks about it other thanÖ
GORDON PETERSON, HOST: Well, weíre talking about it.
KRAUTHAMMER: The third PBS segment of the show. Come on, give me a break.
PETERSON: Now youíre insulting your audience, the people who are still with us.
KRAUTHAMMER: No, these are the nine people in America who really care about stuff. What about all the others?
Well, I guess that makes me one of the nine people in America who really care about stuff.
As for Krauthammer, he was 100 percent correct.
If President Obama were Republican, the media would be going nuts over what happened in Libya earlier this month, so much so that it would be having a significantly negative impact on his reelection chances.
But because these folks are all in on getting this man another four years, their reporting on this matter has been atrocious.
Sadly, that's been par for the course for America's corrupt press since Obama first threw his name into the presidential ring in February 2007.
For the record, besides Totenberg, the other "liberal pals" on the panel were PBS's Mark Shields and Politico's Evan Thomas.
rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
Real superheroes don't wear capes. They wear dog tags.
- Join Date
- Mar 2010
09-29-2012, 07:44 PM
- Join Date
- May 2008
- The West
Krauthammer is correct. I only wish more prominent journalists or commentators were pressing this issue. From the start, this incident raised a myriad of important questions that have yet to be answered. I've seen claims that the reason for the void of knowledge is because the "investigation" is ongoing. I've become convinced that efforts are being made to delay and divert all information until at least after the election, if at all. The reason of course is because there are critical events that happened which even alone would represent foreign policy failures or missteps, but taken as a whole would raise serious concerns about the administration's lack of judgement and experience in foreign affairs; concerns that would definitely play a part in the public's decision in the upcoming election, if those concerns were allowed to fully surface in the media stream for discussion.
The first is the fact that the administration might have received some advance warning that an attack like this could take place. I've seen a few mentions of this in foreign reports, but this was completely ignored and buried by anyone in the American press as far as I know. Remember that reports of advance knowledge of 9-11, even though far less reliable or credible, were investigated far more rigorously and made it more easily into the mainstream media because of the obvious damage it would cause to the Bush admin, if there were even the remotest possibility it were true.
The second is the complete fabrication of an angry "protest" in Benghazi, caused by a video supposedly based on a "movie" that may have angered Muslims. It's obvious that a story of a "protest" that got out of hand, which lead to a fire, which caused our ambassador to die innocuously of 'smoke inhalation", who was then "rushed" to a hospital by good Libyan samaritans, is far less alarming then an outright attack by over a hundred individuals armed with RPGs, automatic weapons and even anti-aircraft weapons, who may have then dragged the ambassador's body thru the streets. But the few true facts which were covered up, were rationed out slowly, piecemeal fashion, so that now, administration officials can quietly claim, "oops, looks like we were mistaken", and no one in the media is paying attention.
The third problem is what this says about our decision to directly assist in the over-throw of Ghaddafi. He may of been a despicable dictator, but he was a dictator that we controlled to some extent or could at least influence his actions . Although the "revolution" was touted as peace loving citizens exercising their "democratic" right to topple an evil regime, the aftermath doesn't quite confirm this. It isn't quite clear that the vacuum created when Ghaddafi was removed is being filled by powers that will enhance our security in the region. And what about the weapons of the loyalist army? It's reported that one of the Americans killed was involved in tracking down some of the more dangerous arms that were taken from the over-thrown government forces. We're talking about some advanced surface to air missiles that if allowed to filter into the hands of certain groups, could provide terrorists with the means to cause serious problems for the Western democracies. Why weren't actions taken earlier to control this? Was this an oversight by the admin? I remember that Bush was raked over the coals for not taking actions to prevent the looting of national treasures during the initial stages of the Iraq war. This is far more serious and potentially deadly, yet is being ignored by most members of the press here at home.
Those are only some of the main questions that would normally be asked of an administration, but are being deferred so as not to raise concerns that might affect the election. Now that Stevens' body has been returned, why is there not more details on the cause of death or condition? What about the lack of adequate security? How did such a large force organize and mobilize without alerting Libyan security officials? Where exactly did Stevens die? Why was he in Benghazi relatively unprotected in an under-secured facility and not in our embassy in Tripoli? Why no funeral as of yet? etc. etc.
Obama should be called to task on at least some of these issues, but he's not being pressed on any at all. And the media is fine with that, as long as he wins in November.
Last edited by Lager; 09-29-2012 at 07:51 PM.
09-30-2012, 12:06 AM
- Join Date
- Jun 2008
It is pretty obvious that ANYTHING that could damage Zero is going to be put on the back burner. Wonder how much the economic news is being "cooked" until after the election.
09-30-2012, 11:30 AM
I don't know what's wrong with Krauthammer. 0bama promised transparency so who is Krauthammer to dispute him?!?
Smacks of racism if you ask me...............
"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that you won't need it until they try to take it away."---Thomas Jefferson
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|