How will the Democratic Party press try to defend the Obama administration over Benghazi? It won’t: it will ignore the story and hope it goes away. To the extent that liberals comment on Benghazi, it will be to mock conservatives for being concerned about it, without ever explaining what the scandal is all about. Here are two examples.
Steve Sack has been the editorial cartoonist at the Minneapolis Star Tribune for about 50 years. He is right at home at that paper–a Democratic Party hack who need only be told the party line, and can be counted on to parrot it. This morning Sack did a cartoon on Benghazi:
Got that? Benghazi is a story of microscopic proportions, and the only scandal is that the GOP wants to make something out of it.
You’ve probably never heard of Steve Sack, but no doubt you are aware of the New York Times. The Times, too, studiously averts its eyes from the administration’s failures and lies. Charles Lifson wrote on Facebook today:
The major story of the day and of the week is the unraveling Benghazi coverup and the appointment of a Select Committee to investigate it. Today’s NYT gave it virtually ZERO attention. Today’s NYT features a reasonable lead story (US Spying on Germany). Its second story is a positive spin on very mixed job numbers. The other front-page stories are Obama’s review of executions after the Oklahoma fiasco, then a big story on maltreatment of Muslims in Myanmar (yes, the Times made that a huge front page story), then lobbying for NY state casinos, and then a criticism of rape stories in “Game of Thrones.” There is a sentence at the bottom of p.1 saying they have a story inside called “Seeking a Benghazi Inquiry.” There are, of course, zero editorials or op-eds on Benghazi. (My prediction: the Times will start running opinion pieces only after they figure out how to defend the Administration’s policy and the coverup, keep Hillary out of harm’s way, and attack the Republican investigation. Protecting Hillary will be crucial.)
Where, pray tell, is Benghazi in the fast-sinking paper of record?? It’s on page A11, below the fold. That is slightly better than including it in small print among the paid obituary notices. Btw, the NYT subheader next to a picture of Speaker Boehner inadvertently gives you the Times’ editorial position: “Ensuring an issue will remain active for midterm elections.” Certainly not if the Times has anything to do with it.
The Democratic Party media won’t try to defend the fecklessness that cost the lives of four Americans–the failure to heed multiple warnings, including pleas for better security from Ambassador Stevens himself, and the still-unexplained refusal to make any attempt to rescue dozens of besieged Americans. Nor will Democratic news outlets try to justify the administration’s pathetic attempts to cover up the fact that the operation was a terrorist attack carried out by Islamic extremists. Instead, they will count on their own low-information voters not to be aware of the largely-unreported facts of the scandal–facts that will remain unreported, if they have anything to say about it.
Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.