May 8, 2013

A perfect display of lameness at the Washington Post.

"Sharyl Attkisson of CBS News, a persistent voice of media skepticism on Benghazi" — The Washington Post puts that article under its "Style" heading — and teases it along with "Met Gala 2013 goes punk," "What to wear to a summer wedding," and "Wedding gift ideas."



This is the main front-paged story on Benghazi this morning in The Washington Post, inviting readers to admire a feisty female:
“I’m a political agnostic,” she says. “I don’t think about who’s good and who’s bad. I just go where the story leads.... People can say what they want about me, I don’t care. I just want to get the information out there.”

But Attkisson, who holds a third-degree black belt in taekwondo, takes a fighting stance when she feels she’s being stonewalled. Which is exactly what she thinks the White House has done to her on Benghazi. In particular, she is irked by the administration’s non-response to a petition for documents that she filed in November under the Freedom of Information Act.
The lady is irked! Irked! She stomps her well-shod foot and looks pretty when angry, I presume. What nonsense! Where was the WaPo's once-legendary investigative reporting? Why the hell are we looking at the Benghazi story today from the perspective of Sharyl Attkisson?
The story has made Attkisson — strong-willed, supremely confident and often controversial — a kind of Rorschach test among journalists.
Oh? She's a Rorschach test? Well, then let me unload my brain — my female and presumably wedding-fashion-gifts-ridden brain — on this WaPo article. I think they're saying hey, look at this lady so we won't look at that other lady: Hillary Clinton, whose actions in the Benghazi affair really do need looking into.

On the home page, WaPo does tease a second Benghazi-related story. It's tucked under the Sharyl Attkisson!!! thing and in fine print: "Republican probe of Benghazi attacks turns to Hillary Clinton."
To Democrats, the efforts amount to a baseless and less-than-subtle crusade to tarnish the credentials of Clinton, one of the country’s most popular political figures and the overwhelming favorite for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination....

Clinton also emerged largely unscathed in January when she testified before Congress about Benghazi.

“She was very smart — at some level because she’s been through so many of these kinds of situations in the past — not to say or do anything that was inaccurate or would in any way be inconsistent with the enormous credibility she earned as secretary of state,” Democratic strategist Chris Lehane said. “Because she protected her credibility, their ability to make a bigger issue out of it is very limited.”
Nothing to see here. Just those terrible Republicans being terrible again, trying to get the jump on 2016, and as for what happened in 2012, well, what difference, at this point, does it make? And take a look: Sharyl Attkisson!!!!

90 comments:

Henry said...

at some level because she’s been through so many of these kinds of situations in the past

Looks like that Rose Law Firm experience is coming in handy after all.

Rumpletweezer said...

In retrospect, it appears that Woodward and Bernstein were not gallant, investigative reporters after all. They were simply partisan hacks. It's sad when our heroes end up having feet of clay.

CEO-MMP said...

Serious, honest question: other than Watergate, when else has WaPo been guilty of legendary investigatory reporting?

I can't think of anything, but WaPo isn't something I pay attention to unless someone links to a story they've published.

Steve said...

I assume that the whole protect Hillary campaign is some sort of Obama Jiu Jitsu. Hillary isn't the Commander in Chief and isn't in the military chain of command so it wasn't on her orders that the SpecOps guys didn't fly. If there were shenanigans they didn't end in the State Department.

Ann Althouse said...

"at some level because she’s been through so many of these kinds of situations in the past"

Yeah. Lying and covering up for liars.

Lehane is unintentionally revealing.

Michael Haz said...

Protect Hillary is actually Protect Barack.

rhhardin said...

It's aimed at 40% of women, not the remaining 60% of women.

The 40% though will buy the paper every day, and the 60% won't.

That's because entertaining soap opera is easy to manufacture, and entertaining hard news is not.

Ann Althouse said...

Obama Jiu Jitsu.

Will taekwondo work? Because I hear Sharyl Attkisson!!!!! is a 3d-degree black belt.

She's a veritable tigress, capable of filing a Freedom of Information petition.

Look out! It's Sharyl, with that relentless — black belt ! — petition filed last November.

Tank said...

This is why, when Sean Hannity says that journalism is dead, he's right.

WaPo was once a pretty good paper. Liberal, but a real paper. Those days ... gone.

Now, their mostly just part of the left team.

rhhardin said...

Stamping of tiny foot.

That was R. Emmett Tyrrell's feminist-describing phrase long ago.

Kirk Parker said...

"Because she protected her credibility"

Hahahaha haha ha ha ha ....

Awesome, I haven't ROFLMAO'd this hard in ages.

.
.
.
.
Wait, you say he said this seriously???

Matthew Sablan said...

But did she drink Diet Dr. Pepper while chain-smoking? I need my villains made clear, though preferably without an Ouija board scene.

Matthew Sablan said...

"She was very smart — at some level because she’s been through so many of these kinds of situations in the past — not to say or do anything that was inaccurate or would in any way be inconsistent with the enormous credibility she earned as secretary of state."

-- You know a situation she's been in before where a bunch of Republicans asked her embarrassing questions where the current Democrat President may have been hiding something?

Come on, we were all thinking it.

rhhardin said...

Belmont Club says that the real coverup is the total incompetence of the administration, not a particular bit of it.

Tank said...

Their = they're.

Ouch.

Lose.

Jay said...

So a story that is inconvenient for Democrats becomes a story about the journalist instead.

That's heartwarming.

Brian said...

I'm with Steve et al. They're not protecting Hillary, they're just keeping her in reserve as the last and best piece to sacrifice in the defense of Obama.

Matthew Sablan said...

They won't sacrifice the Clinton dynasty because the Clinton dynasty will take them all down with them.

Brian said...

By what mechanism, Matthew?

The Drill SGT said...

Obama and his administration are only out to protect the Won and take the House in 2014. If people need to go under the bus, so be it.

It was a pretty catty piece of newsprint slime though. What you'd expect in the Estrogen ghetto of the WaPo Style section.

Kirk Parker said...

Matthew Sablan,

"They won't sacrifice the Clinton dynasty because the Clinton dynasty will take them all down with them."

Works for me.

AprilApple said...

I think Sheryl is about to bump her head.

Whenever the pro-democrat hack media feel they must cover a story that might implicate fellow democrats, they get irked.
Poor babies.

TML said...

That was just an embarrassing article to read. I'd like to know how articles on Abu Ghraib were framed under Bush. Didn't that scandal remain in the press for months? Like it was the worst thing that ever happened? But what do lawyers say? Is there anything "actionable" here? Because if there isn't this will remain an MSM controlled thing that will go nowhere. Ever.

jacksonjay said...


Damn, the WaPo is partisan! Who knew?

Just a few short weeks ago, the Professor said that a WaPo story on David Corn and Mothter Jones gave him some credibility!

And I quote, "Let's be clear: The Washington Post has a front-page story about Corn, elevating him in the journalistic profession." Now she's all pissy about the great WaPo!

Marshal said...

The idea that Obama is the focus of protection is less accurate than generally thought, especially of non-government groups. Leftists work to protect leftism, only close associates work to protect individuals over the cause. Obama needs to be protected through the 2014 elections, but less so than through 2012. Leftist partisans who six months ago assured us re-electing Obama was critical to saving America are now positioning themselves to claim they were critics all along (see garage). Since Obama's no longer useful to the cause why risk damage protecting him?

AprilApple said...

Hillary crafted the spontaneous eruption "it was the video" story. A total fabrication.

Pogo said...

But what does Sharyl Attkisson wear, when not black belted?

AprilApple said...

I hate to break it to you Attkinsson, pro-democrat "journalist" hack, but Hillary! will never be president.

AprilApple said...

To democrats and their enabling hacks in the media, lying is an important social skill.

Mitchell the Bat said...

I would describe it as neither perfect nor lame.

TheCrankyProfessor said...

Talk about meta-journalism. It's so funny it's hard to be disgusted - though I am.

Brian said...

Marshal, you're assuming that the exaltation of Obama was done (and is perpetuated) to advance lefty politics. I think that's incorrect. Obama isn't protected because he's a useful ally to the left; he mostly isn't. He's protected because he's a treasured cultural totem. He's not going to stop being that in 2014 or 2016.

jacksonjay said...


And Hillary is the next cultural totem!

Hagar said...

Well, it is a bit surprising that Sharyl Attkisson, not previously known for breaking with company policy, should appear as the hero of the hour. Not as earthshaking as the NYT publishing an article about the Pigford debacle, perhaps, but getting there.
However, I do not think WaPo is trying to deflect attention from Hillary! so much in this case, as that they are throwing glitter in the air to distract attention from themselves.

Where were all the men?

Brian said...

The job is full, jacksonjay.

jd said...

wow--althouse sounds really desperate.

just like when she had a feeling that romney was going to win, and then despondently signed off of her money-generating blog the night of the election to lick her wounds.

stop trying to make "beghazi" happen. it's not going to happen!

AprilApple said...

Cover-up, fake "it was the video/spontaneous flash-mob" story, State insisted military reinforcements stand down.
This was a failure from the top down at State.

Hack media response: Nothing to see here - Blame the republicans.

Journalism is dead in America.

Larry J said...

CEO-MMP said...
Serious, honest question: other than Watergate, when else has WaPo been guilty of legendary investigatory reporting?


I'd guess they were all over any Republican scandal like Iran-Contra. Democrat scandals, not so much.

ricpic said...

Hillary's power lust makes EVERYTHING situational.

Colonel Angus said...

Isn't the real issue why Obama thought it in our national interest to engage in regime change against a country that posed no threat to us? Toppling Ghadaffi did nothing more than give Islamic terrorists another country to base out of.

That is what led to the death of Stevens and the others and that is the real question that should be asked before this idiot gets us mixed up in Syria.

Peter said...

It's the People Magazine approach to journalism: it's all about the personalities involved. Never mind the substance (just move alone, move along, nothing to see here).

The Drill SGT said...

Hagar said...
Well, it is a bit surprising that Sharyl Attkisson, not previously known for breaking with company policy, should appear as the hero of the hour.


No, she has at least two strikes. She was the leading (only) MSM reporter doing Fast and Furious...

Big Mike said...

Where was the WaPo's once-legendary investigative reporting?

As I said yesterday, in forty years the Post has gone from ripping apart the coverup to participating in the coverup.

We dropped the paper, but they called us up and are giving it to us for a price that probably barely covers the cost of the paper it's printed on. We get more back on the food coupons than we spend on the paper so that makes sense for us financially. But aside from the coupons and the Sudoku puzzles, the rest lines the bottom of the bird cage.

JAL said...

Maybe the WaPo should put it on the sports page?

"Sharyl Attkinsson is the only reporter with balls" on the national political stage.

I know her name. The other "reporters" are bad jokes.

JAL said...

Their snarky coverage is part of the left's War On Women®

gerry said...

my female and presumably wedding-fashion-gifts-ridden brain

This is one of your finest moments! It's got so much irony and sarcasm in such a small space...great stuff!

Big Mike said...

Isn't the real issue why Obama thought it in our national interest to engage in regime change against a country that posed no threat to us? Toppling Ghadaffi did nothing more than give Islamic terrorists another country to base out of.

Colonel, suh, that is a serious question that should have been debated strenuously. In December 2003 Ghadaffi renounced development of WMD and basically tried to play nice with the rest of the world. (I'm trying to remember -- did anything happen around 2003 that might have made him change his stance towards the United States?) Instead of rewarding him for that development, we overthrew him.

(1) Will this help Obama now and other presidents int the future convince tinpot dictators to renounce WMD? It seems to me that North Korea and Iran answer that.

(2) Has overthrowing Gadaffi made North Africa more stable or less so?

Marshal said...

jd said...
stop trying to make "beghazi" happen. it's not going to happen!


Uh, Benghazi already happened.

Pretty revealing the left thinks 4 people didn't die if it's politically inconvenient.

AprilApple said...

Ghadaffi was a bad character - pure evil. But he was neutralized and no longer a threat. Now, Al Qaeda is in charge of Libya. Hillary's! Smart Diplomacy.

At this point, what difference does it make to our unprofessional hack media?

Icepick said...

Gay man gets beaten to death (or worse) and the Dems just say "More along, nothing to see here." Why do Dems hate Teh Gays?

furious_a said...

Where was the WaPo's once-legendary investigative reporting?

According to Wapo's factchecker, it's waiting for more information to "emerge" before finalizing the number of 'pinnochios' awarded, or something.

rcommal said...

Huh. Accuracy in Media eanted to give this reporter a reward at CPAC. She donated the money to the family of a slain border agent. Strikes me as odd that those of conservative bent, those who wish the MSM would do more coverage on Fast and Furious and Benghazi, would mock one of the few MSM reporters who did and is. And in such a small, and petty way, too.

John said...

For those who say the WaPo was once a good paper, I suggest you read Caro's latest volume of the LBJ bio. If nothing else, read the chapters about the 1960 Demmie convention where LBJ and JFK (not Kerry, the other one) were duking it out for the nomination.

Philip Graham, the paper's owner, was constantly in LBJs LBJ hotel room and one of his innermost circle of strategic advisors.

Ben Bradlee, the paper's exec editor was constantly in JFK's hotel room and one of his innermost circle of advisors.

(I might be remembering it backwards)

Yeah. Like any Repo ever had any chance in Hell of getting a fair shake from that crowd.

Add in the fact that Nixon took down one of their own, Alger Hiss, and you know the daggers were out.

Yeah, Nixon was sleazy as Hell. No worse than JFK, though. Much less worse than LBJ.

John Henry

rcommal said...

Huh. Accuracy in Media eanted to give this reporter a reward at CPAC. She donated the money to the family of a slain border agent. Strikes me as odd that those of conservative bent, those who wish the MSM would do more coverage on Fast and Furious and Benghazi, would mock one of the few MSM reporters who did and is. And in such a small, and petty way, too.

Bob Ellison said...

Professor, lately you've been completing just about all worthy analysis of the topics you post. It leaves us Althouse commenters with nothing worth saying.

I will say, though, that a 3rd-degree black belt in Taekwondo is a strong indicator of very uncommon dedication and skill. My son has a 1st-degree black belt in karate, and it took a long time, and he's pretty amazing at it. The higher-degree folks he now works with are insanely practiced and capable.

Hmm. Hillary is not widely known to have a martial arts qualification. She does have a very high security clearance, presumably, but that doesn't make her scary. It makes her competent and brainy. Oh, and she was a first lady. Michelle Obama seems more scary than Hillary; maybe she, too, will run for POTUS one day. Maybe in 2016!

John said...

Is Atkisson a transsexual?

I ask this because it is said that she has "balls".

I seem to be seeing this locution more and more in recent months.

It seems to me that saying a woman has balls is insulting to all women. It says that only men can be brave, courageous, assertive, strong etc. Women, actual women without balls, can never be any of these things.

Why are not feminists up in arms about this terminology? It is just so offensive on so many levels.

"If my aunt had balls she would be my uncle"

John Henry

Michael K said...

"Rumpletweezer said...
In retrospect, it appears that Woodward and Bernstein were not gallant, investigative reporters after all. They were simply partisan hacks. It's sad when our heroes end up having feet of clay."

No, they were stenographers for revenge seeking Mark Felt, who hated Nixon for passing him over as FBI Director. They did an excellent job. No typos.

John said...

One correction to the above.

I did see something not long ago about how Hilary! had balls. In her case it might be right.

She has Bill's balls and keeps them in a jar in the refrigerator.

John Henry

Drago said...

Marshall: "Pretty revealing the left thinks 4 people didn't die if it's politically inconvenient."

The left spent about 80 years pretending 100 million didn't die since it was politically inconvenient.

The New York Times still has Duranty's Pulitzer (for helping to cover up Stalins mass murder)hanging on the wall.

4 people in Benghazi?

Small taters indeed for the jd's of the world.

Drago said...

Michael K: "No, they were stenographers for revenge seeking Mark Felt, who hated Nixon for passing him over as FBI Director. They did an excellent job. No typos."

Absolutely correct.

DADvocate said...

the enormous credibility she earned as secretary of state

Really? Hillary hasn't had any credibility in my book since the "stand by your man" stuff years ago. Her success came largely by riding Bill's coattails.

John said...

DADvocate said:

Her success came largely by riding Bill's coattails.

"Largely"?

Let's see:

Moves to AK and after Bill becomes AG she gets taken on at Rose Law as an associate.

Bill gets elected gov and she gets made partner

Then comes 8 years in which she had no official functions and managed to even fuck them up. Travel Office, for one.

Elected Senator from NY, a state to which her only connection is a Yankee's hat.

Does absolutely nothing as Senator for 6 years and promises! (I really truly mean it) that if re-elected in 2006 she will not run for Prez.

Still doesn't accomplish anything in the Senate and then reneges on her promise to run for Prez.

Having lost that race to some even less accomplished than herself, she could have kept her promise to the NY voters and stayed in the Senate but became sec state instead.

in 4 years she proved herself to be totally incompetent as Sec State

And now people think she is qualified to be President? Hey, it worked for Obie. Why not give it a shot. How hard can it be?

Seriously, I've been asking for years in a variety of fora for a list of Hilary's! career accomplishments. Other than "She speaks pretty." Which is an opinion I don't agree with, I get nothing.

Everything she is or has ever done has been because she was married to Bill.

Everything

John Henry

edutcher said...

People in the media must hate that woman even more than someone like Ann Althouse.

She's done the heavy lifting not only on Benghazi, but also F&F.

Rumpletweezer said...

In retrospect, it appears that Woodward and Bernstein were not gallant, investigative reporters after all. They were simply partisan hacks.

It took you 40 years to figure that out?

Matthew Sablan said...

They won't sacrifice the Clinton dynasty because the Clinton dynasty will take them all down with them.

Willie owes them, anyway.

Pogo said...

But what does Sharyl Attkisson wear, when not black belted?

I'd say tights and a cape.

James said...

rconmal, perhaps I've missed something. Who is mocking Sharyl Attkisson?

Marshal said...

Drago said...
The left spent about 80 years pretending 100 million didn't die since it was politically inconvenient.


Most current lefties pretend they would never have been fellow travelers. Contemporaneous observations help demonstrate how wrong that facade is.

creeley23 said...

The Discovery channel just did a boffo "documentary film," "All the President's Men Revisited" including Robert Redford as well as the real journalists.

Forty years of self-congratulations. Meanwhile, Benghazi goes on right under their noses.

But hey, that's different. This time the scandal involves Democrats.

William said...

It's touching and a llittle sad to see how Republicans go into these hearings thinking that, at long last, this will be the one that brings Hillary down. They expect that there will be this Perry Mason moment where she breaks down on the stand and confesses to everything........It's not going to happen. She will make a few obfuscatory statements and the press will investigate Rep. Issa's deeply hostile attitude towards women.......She has walked away from large, steaming piles smelling like a rose. This is just a transient fart in her distinguished career.

James said...

BigMike, Obama was simply following his adviser Samantha Power's recommendation on "humanitarian intervention." Its a pity she will never be called to testify before a committee but the administration will do everything to hide her.

t-man said...

This is like chess. Obama is the King and Hillary! the Queen. The Queen zooms around the board and is the most powerful piece, but her sole function is to protect the King. The King jealously protects the Queen, because he needs her power, as he plods along slowly, back and forth, never really going anywhere. If the Queen goes down, the King's prospects are almost fatally wounded and he is likely to lose.

Hillary knows that she has been the Queen in this round, but she wants to be the King in the next. Although no longer Sec. of State, she still has enormous power: her own political machine and the support and protection she will receive as the presumptive nominee for 2016, bringinh the possibility of another historic election (the first woman President!!!!). The current King does not want to lose the Queen's power, or worse, have that power turn against him for recklessly abandoning the Queen.

The King and Queen will rise or fall together.

David said...

Bob Woodward was on the Virginia desk of WAPO when he began work on the Watergate story. That position was the lowest of the low at the Post at the time. I remember that because a friend of mine had quit that job in frustration, opening it up for Woodward, not long before the story launched Woodward's career.

AprilApple said...

*hiccup*. Sheryl's journalistic instincts are to ignore facts and cover for the Official Sacred Cow.

AprilApple said...

How dare this woman blame the official media sanctioned US Sacred Cow. Guards, seize her!

Doesn't she understand that the Obama administration and Hillary! in particular share zero responsibility for anything, ever?

Plus, lying is an important social skill if you're a sacred cow or a member of the party of sacred cows.

jd said...

i find it hilarious that 4 people dying in benghazi is the worst thing that ever happened. that is a tragedy--yet there is no question that brave people go into service in often highly unstable places around the world aware that there is a risk involved.

when there are gun deaths in the united states, however, the response by althouse and the commenters on this blog is to "stop rubbernecking" and accept that "you can't stop every bad thing from happening." That was the response to the Newtown tragedy.

So don't tell me about not caring about when people die. Because your (by "your" I mean all of the know-it-all crackpots) level caring about when people get slaughtered is directly tied to who has the most to gain or lose politically from a tragedy.

Tank said...

jd said...

i find it hilarious that 4 people dying in benghazi is the worst thing that ever happened. that is a tragedy--yet there is no question that brave people go into service in often highly unstable places around the world aware that there is a risk involved.

Really, a pathetic attempt to misstate the issues involved. You can do better than this, can't you?

jd said...

you can elucidate your characterization of a "pathetic attempt," can't you?

Tank said...

I certainly can, but it's not necessary. You are deliberately misleading.

Hey, that is sort of related to the issues, isn't it?

Marshal said...

jd said...
i find it hilarious that 4 people dying in benghazi is the worst thing that ever happened.

Suddenly we're only allowed to criticize the worst thing that has ever happened?

when there are gun deaths in the united states, however, the response by althouse and the commenters on this blog is to "stop rubbernecking" and accept that "you can't stop every bad thing from happening." That was the response to the Newtown tragedy.

The difference between the left and the rest is that we require our solutions to mitigate the problem. In the case of Newtown we know banning guns won't save net lives. On the other hand we do know a relief force could have reached the secondary compound in time to save lives. It's quite revealing jd likes to compare support for various responses but the effectiveness of the response is not part of his evaluation.

edutcher said...

jd said...

i find it hilarious that 4 people dying in benghazi is the worst thing that ever happened.

How about a Presidential Administration guilty of malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance in office for allowing their deaths because it might be politically embarrassing?

PS The no caps thing went out with the 50s.

ken in sc said...

When I lived in DC the Star was my paper. They actually had interesting articles. They had a gossip column, I think it was called The Ear--sounded like it was written by a gay guy. It was really amusing. Sadly it is gone now. The Post was a just a big boring mess, but they had good comics.

Cedarford said...

Michael K said...
"Rumpletweezer said...
In retrospect, it appears that Woodward and Bernstein were not gallant, investigative reporters after all. They were simply partisan hacks. It's sad when our heroes end up having feet of clay."

No, they were stenographers for revenge seeking Mark Felt, who hated Nixon for passing him over as FBI Director. They did an excellent job. No typos.

-------------------------
Woodward was not your garden variety dirtball reporter like Berstein. The achievements of both guys diverge considerably pre-Watergate and post Watergate.

Woodward was the son of prominent Chicago attorney. He went to Yale on a ROTC scholarship. He did very well there. He served in the Navy nearly 5 years as a Communications Intelligence Officer, rising rapidly after a Vietnam stint to become the intel briefer of both the CNO(Chief of Naval Operations) Adm Thomas Moorer and SecNav at Pentagon and White House, and Congressional meetings.

Accepted at Harvard Law, Woodward elected not to do law like his Dad, but was working on a Masters in ELINT at George Washington U as prep for joining the CIA or NSA when he started doing a sidejob as a passion - journalism. He landed a job at WAPO, unusual for someone with no reporting experience. In fact, WAPO sort of farmed him out to Mongomery Country Sentinel to get more experience before bringing Woodward back.
He became the Sentinal's best reporter in under a year, having dropped his grad studies to focus full-time on a journalism career. WAPO noticed and brought him back to the Flagship.
He was sort of regarded as a star prospect, and assigned a "careerist" staffer who had started as a copyboy and dropped out of college, (Bernstein) to season him.

Post Watergate, there have been a lot of speculation about Wodwards links to the spook community from his Naval days, and Bernsteins parents being revealed in 1989 as active Communist Cadres investigated by the FBI for 30 years (Bernstein writes of his Bar Mitzva being staked out by a half dozen FBI agents noting arrivals). Bernstein denounced both the witch hunt and his parents worship of a false ideology...

Jay said...

jd said...
i find it hilarious that 4 people dying in benghazi is the worst thing that ever happened.


Of course nobody ever said it was, so your beclowning is epic.

when there are gun deaths in the united states, however, the response by althouse and the commenters on this blog is to "stop rubbernecking" and accept that "you can't stop every bad thing from happening." That was the response to the Newtown tragedy.

Right. And I bet you could produce some of those quotes too.

Really, you could.

President-Mom-Jeans said...

Elijah cummings is a despicable piece of shit.

I still don't think any of this is going to matter, none of the lefties pay attention, they will remain willfully ignorant despite all evidence to the contrary.

Obama is half black, and hilary has a vagina. That's all that matters and the media smear campaign on the whistleblowers is already in full force.

Evil despicable fucks, the left.

Saint Croix said...

I hate to break it to you Attkinsson, pro-democrat "journalist" hack

April, she's an awesome reporter. See good discussion here.

Saint Croix said...

Why the hell are we looking at the Benghazi story today from the perspective of Sharyl Attkisson?

Same reason we saw so many stories in the media that were about the lack of coverage of the Gosnell murder trial.

The media is doing an interesting and bizarre job of covering its own bias and shoddy journalism.

Readers of the Washington Post are thus invited to get the real news from CBS.

"Yes, we're biased and keeping the news from you. But here's a story about the journalists who are doing a fantastic job of showing how incompetent we are. And we have no idea why we're losing our audience."

Infanticide? What's that? Dead ambassador? Who?

Hey, are you ready for gay basketball?

At the WaPo, it's all Style Section.

Neo said...

People Died then the White House lied and lied and lied

Sam L. said...

WaPo's War On One Woman!

Saint Croix said...

I don't know if this 5 minute clip will destroy Hillary Clinton, but it ought to!

"I'm just a country boy from Ohio." Who is on fire! That is how you do it. Jim Jordan, my new favorite member of the House.

Saint Croix said...

Uh-oh, Hillary, the NYT says...

You stink of cover-up!

When Representative Jason Chaffetz, Republican of Utah, visited Libya after the attack, Mr. Hicks said his bosses told him not to talk to the congressman. When he did anyway, and a State Department lawyer was excluded from one meeting because he lacked the necessary security clearance, Mr. Hicks said he received an angry phone call from Mrs. Clinton’s chief of staff, Cheryl Mills.

n.n said...

t-man:

That's an interesting metaphor. I wonder how the queen's staff and constituency will react if the king decides to sacrifice her to save himself. It could initiate a civil war.

Ctmom4 said...

Compare the media treatment of Benghazi with the endless hyperventilating over the non - outing of non undercover agent Valerie Plame. Hundreds, maybe thousands of stories. Led the nightly news for month after month. Ruined an innocent man's reputation. The wronged heroine took time out from her Vanity Fair photo shoot to testify about it. No one was harmed. She didn't even break a nail.