It is no surprise to anyone that the American media are "in the tank" for Barack Hussein Obama. But the extent of their disgraceful performance in ignoring the White House's handling of both the Bengahzi terrorist attack and FEMA's feeble response to superstorm Sandy is nothing short of astonishing.
As the US news media, with very few exceptions, continue to disgrace themselves daily in both print, broadcast radio, and television "reporting" the American people are being kept in the dark about the true extent of superstorm Sandy's destruction, the feeble FEMA response, the lack of any significant Homeland Security response, and emerging facts about the White House's deplorable lack of attention to the unfolding Benghazi terrorist attack of September 11, 2012.
Upon further review, Obama's actions in response to both superstorm Sandy and the Benghazi terrorist attack have been strictly political and designed to avoid any public understanding of the extent of White House incompetence with its responses to both.
Superstorm Sandy
Obama was quick to play the role of being "presidential" for a doting media who provided massive coverage as he ran off to New Jersey for a hugfest with Governor Christie, a man who should be embarrassed for his gushing and certainly premature praise for Obama. While Obama praises his FEMA, their response is not setting well with the people who have been affected the most. From the shores of New Jersey to Staten Island, devastation has been far worse than reported. It is almost unimaginable. According to people on the ground in Staten Island, the death count has been grossly under-reported, perhaps by an order of magnitude.
While Manhattan is expected to have full electric service before the end of the weekend, Staten Island is in a shambles and is unlikely to have an accurate account of the dead and missing persons before next week. Voting in Manhattan, a strongly Democrat section of the city will be least affected with fully restored power. On Staten Island, voting will be much more difficult, but, hey, what's the problem? After all, Staten Island is the most Republican of the five borough's of New York City.
So was Obama's quick trip to New Jersey really more of a campaign response to his sagging polling in New Jersey?
The extent of misery and devastation; the feeble FEMA response; Obama once again (as with Benghazi) jetting off to a Nevada campaign event while significant aid issues remained unresolved; the national media's quick turn away from coverage of the bungling of timely and effective response to Sandy -- all this will be suppressed by the Obamamedia in their continuing effort to buttress Obama's failing campaign for re-election.
Why weren't the facilities of the National Guard put into service before the storm struck? Everyone knew this was to be a superstorm beyond anything experienced since well before the introduction of electricity. It was known days before the storm hit that food and fuel would be scarce, that electricity would be unavailable for a considerable time, that normal life would be severely impacted, that massive areas would be devastated. Where was help from the new class of Homeland Security forces who were trained to help FEMA in just such an event?
In short, the White House response to Sandy has been superficial and inadequate. There are still missing and many, many people without power, homes, or even the knowledge of whether their loved-ones are even alive. Nevertheless, Obama found it more important to jet off to Nevada to try to bolster his failing poll ratings. After all, for Obama, there is nothing more important than being re-elected. Nothing.
Coverage of the true extent of superstorm Sandy's devastation by the "ususal suspects" in US news media (broadcast radio and television, CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, Chicago Tribune, Boston Globe, Atlanta Constitution, etc.) will be shaped to only reflect well on Obama, because there is nothing more important to these news media outlets than their deceptive shaping of news to favor Obama while at the same time participating in a massive cover-up of the Obama White House's bungling incompetence.
Benghazi
What we know despite the major news media's embargo on any news about the Benghazi terrorist attack:
We now know that the White House was forewarned of a terrorist attack before the September 11 terrorist attack on the US territory within the consular compound in Benghazi, Libya that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Stevens.
We also know that the White House was fully aware of the danger to our people in Benghazi, because they knew that every other nation had pulled their diplomats out of Libya.
We also know that had the White House either increased security forces or removed our consular staff before the attack, those moves would have been regarded as an admission that getting Osama bin Laden did not mean that "Al Qaeda was on the run", contrary to Obama's campaign narrative.
We are also aware that the White House tried, unsuccessfully, for two weeks afterward to claim the terrorist attack was really a "spontaneous" protest over a little-viewed YouTube video.
We also know that the YouTube video protests in Egypt were fueled by the Muslim Brotherhood.
We also know that the Obama had met several times this summer with the Muslim Brotherhood at the White House.
We also know that the Muslim Brotherhood has been trying to secure the release of Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, the "blind Sheikh" responsible for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
We also know that an "October/November surprise" has become a routine part of Democrat campaigns for the White House.
We also have seen a source in Washington claiming that during one of their visits to the White House, Obama had spoken with the Muslim Brotherhood about a kidnap plan involving Ambassador Stevens that could be used to exchange Stevens for Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman. Freeing the kidnapped ambassador was to be timed to late October - the "October surprise"!
Was the Benghazi attack really a kidnap plan gone bad? How will we know unless those in a position to know are questioned?
We do know that the US had specially trained quick response forces in Italy, less than two hours from the site of the attack. Yet they were told to "stand down." Why?
We know that we had armed military assets in the air who could have destroyed a mortar that subsequently killed two of the Americans.
We know that one of those two killed by mortar fire, Tyrone Woods, had "painted" (laser-designated) the mortar that eventually killed him. We know that his actions would never have been taken if he had not known with certainty that there were airborne weapons standing by to use his designation to destroy the target. Yet no attack came. Why? Woods had made several previous real-time email requests that went to a number of key federal agencies monitoring the attack. Yet he was left high and dry to be killed during an episode that lasted eight hours!
We know all this thanks to the dogged work performed by real journalists who have been provided an outlet for their work at FOX News and the internet.
Why had the White House forcefully attempted to portray this attack as a protest over a little-viewed video? How do we account for the peculiar timing of the short-lived protests in Egypt over this same obscure video?
Why did the White House go so far as to hunt down the producer of the video an put him in jail? Was it just to maintain the charade that "Al Qaeda is on the run"?
We now know that Al Qaeda "ran" to Libay where they set up several terrorist training camps. We know that they are doing the same in Iraq.
But the biggest questions of all must be directed to the Obamamedia. Why will you not pursue questioning Obama about his conduct the night of September 11? Why won't you ask him how it is possible that military forces were told to "stand down" and not protect American lives in Benghazi? His stock answer, that an investigation is ongoing, is not responsive to what he knew, when he knew it, and what he did.
Recognizing Obama's penchant for lying to cover his behind, getting an answer is only half the question. But it takes a real news media to protect the public's right to know these things. And we're certainly not getting real news from the current US news media establishment (including AP news services).
The "ususal suspects" in US news media (broadcast radio and television, CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, Chicago Tribune, Boston Globe, Atlanta Constitution, etc.), are ignoring the White House's complete bungling of the Benghazi terrorist attack because to them there is nothing more important than shaping the news to favor Obama while participating in massive cover-ups of the Obama White House's bungling incompetence.
Author of "Looking Out the Window", an evidence-based examination of the "climate change" issue, Bob Webster, is a 12th-generation descendent of both the Darte family (Connecticut, 1630s) and the Webster family (Massachusetts, 1630s). He is a descendant of Daniel Webster's father, Revolutionary War patriot Ebenezer Webster, who served with General Washington. Bob has always had a strong interest in early American history, our Constitution, U.S. politics, and law. Politically he is a constitutional republican with objectivist and libertarian roots. He has faith in the ultimate triumph of truth and reason over deception and emotion. He is a strong believer in our Constitution as written and views the abandonment of constitutional restraint by the regressive Progressive movement as a great danger to our Republic. His favorite novel is Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand and believes it should be required reading for all high school students so they can appreciate the cost of tolerating the growth of unconstitutional crushingly powerful central government. He strongly believes, as our Constitution enshrines, that the interests of the individual should be held superior to the interests of the state.
A lifelong interest in meteorology and climatology spurred his strong interest in science. Bob earned his degree in Mathematics at Virginia Tech, graduating in 1964.
Cover
•
Commentary
•
Books & Reviews
•
Climate Change
•
Site Links
•
Feedback
