NPR’s Patronizing #Benghazi Report

Mr. Liberty shot off an email to me this afternoon that included his comments to NPR on a report they did this morning on Benghazi. Mr. Liberty notes he has cc’d this email to The Other McCain and Instapundit. I hope it sees some traction because he’s dead right.

These were his comments:

Your perfunctory report this morning on the air (and here on your site) “U.S. Offers New Details Of Deadly Libya Attack” is an insult to your listeners.

Firstly, there is little to no inquiry into the decisions made in the chain of command during that horrible night in Libya.  You seem to accept the explanation that there was simply nothing anyone could do with a sort of weary shrug.  Your own time-line indicates a period of several hours in which the US could have responded to the “second attack,” and yet you blithely accept (or perhaps offer) a litany of superficial excuses for inaction without the slightest skepticism.

Secondly, you make absolutely no mention of the US administration’s misrepresentation of the cause and nature of the attack in Libya for nearly two weeks.  In multiple speeches, the President (at the UN in particular), Ambassador Rice (on national television) and the Secretary of State (in public statements and in a statement to the father of one of the dead no less) persistently cited the odious anti-Islamic video as the cause of this violence, which was characterized as spontaneous.  Your report doesn’t even mention this (nor the fact that the film-maker is still in jail).  WHY the administration persisted in this misrepresentation when it is beginning to appear they had ample information to the contrary is the question driving interest in this story.

And finally, you don’t even bother to end with the usual casual closing that “questions remain” even though a plethora of questions remain.  Frankly, the entire report seems to amount to a dismissive wave of the hand to those of us interested in this story (and getting our news from multiple sources).

While I understand that time often results in issues being oversimplified and what some might view as salient facts being omitted in reports, your report this morning on the attack in Libya was inexcusable.  If you’re going to take so overtly the resigned “nothing-to-see-here” tone about an important story about which many Americans are talking and writing, then please don’t bother reporting on it at all.  That might frustrate those of us interested in the story, but it at least won’t be outright insulting to us.

Indeed.

Here is the link to the Catherine Herridge report. More here from Ace.

Jake Tapper at ABC checks into the drip, drip drip of Benghazi stories.

Instapundit comments that #Benghazi is barely a blip on the media’s radar.

The Daily Caller has a good round up of all the Benghazi news.

The Other McCain has a video up called “It’s time for the truth.” Indeed, it is and the legacy media is not going to tell said truth unless forced to.

National Review's Michael Mann Ad
Don't Forget To Buy A New Charger
  • herddog505

    Nothing to see here. Move along. Move along…

    I must say, though, that I’ve learned one thing from all of this: liberals DO know that history doesn’t begin yesterday. They remember what the Iran hostage crisis did to Jimmuh, and they ain’t about to repeat the mistake.

    • Henry Vandenburgh

      Well, it almost happened again…

    • Commander_Chico_Cognoscente

      444 days vs. seven hours.

      The Iran hostage crisis is most relevant as a lesson of how difficult and dangerous a rescue mission is.

      • herddog505

        Shall we call this the Chico Doctrine:

        “If you’re in a jam, don’t look for us to bail you out. Why, we might get hurt!”

        Pretty sure that this is NOT a doctrine embraced by many in the US military.

        • Commander_Chico_Cognoscente

          For the tenth time: there were no assets available to plan, move and execute a mission within the seven hours. If you think so, it’s only because you’ve been deluded by propagandistic Big Lies.

          The timeline indicates that forces were standing up in Croatia at 0030, but the clock ran out.

          WASHINGTON — About three hours after the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, came under attack, the Pentagon issued an urgent call for an array of quick-reaction forces, including an elite Special Forces team that was on a training mission in Croatia.

          The team dropped what it was doing and prepared to move to the Sigonella naval air station in Sicily, a short flight from Benghazi and other hot spots in the region. By the time the unit arrived at the base, however, the surviving Americans at the Benghazi mission had been evacuated to Tripoli, and Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were dead.

          http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/04/world/africa/benghazi-attack-raises-doubts-about-us-abilities-in-region.html?pagewanted=all

          That is just the way shit works in the real world. It’s happened before, will happen again.

          But the Chico Doctrine is:

          When I volunteer for a dangerous mission, I understand it’s dangerous (that’s why I get Danger Pay).

          I only want the help you can reasonably provide, not to foolishly sacrifice 10 men on a hasty, unplanned and under-resourced mission to rescue me.

          That is in fact a doctrine embraced by the U.S. military.

          • herddog505

            Whatever.

            It’s obvious to me that you bought into the whole “it was the VIDEO!” and, now that it’s becoming increasingly obvious that it WASN’T, that we had some idea that the consulate was in real danger from terrorists and that Barry and Co. did nothing about it, you’ve got to make out that there was nothing he – ANYBODY – COULD have done. Indeed, your idea seems to be that doing anything would have been the height of folly, and even asking questions about it is disrespectful of the dead, mean to their families, and all-around pointless.

            It may be that there were not sufficient resources available to launch a rescue mission in time to get the people out of Benghazi. Why, then, was that not clear from the beginning? Why did we have to hear weeks of bullsh*t about a video before anybody would admit what was apparently known from the beginning? Why were there (apparantly) no forces available to help the consulate when it was KNOWN that the ambassador had warned of trouble and practically begged for help?

            The whole thing stinks to high heavens, and I am interested in the truth, not passing it off with a “meh”.

          • Brucehenry

            http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/11/02/1128831/new-details-discredit-fox-news-benghazi/?mobile=nc

            This should help you see another version of events. Yes, one must take this with a grain of salt, as it comes via ThinkProgress (which I suggest is no more partisan than FOX “News”). But click on the various links in the article and see if they don’t provide at least some substantiation of TP’s version. Substantiation which is at least as credible as what the various Rightie blogs and FOX have provided.

            As to your Why?Why? questions I can only speculate, but perhaps the administration was unwilling to reveal the extent to which the CIA was present on the ground in the area?

          • Brucehenry

            Here’s another link for you. Read it with an open mind, even though it comes from Media Matters, as you would expect me to do with a link from one of your trusted internet sources.

            http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/11/02/hyping-benghazi-madness-right-wing-projects-its/191089

          • herddog505

            I tried it.

            Bilge from beginning to end. Allow me to summarize:

            Those nasty reichwing Rethuglikkkans are just so mean to Obama! They HATE him! And that makes them tell lies about Benghazi! FOX NEWS! SNARL! Why, NOBODY has EVER tried to politicize a terrorist attack like this! You can’t PROVE that Obama did anything wrong! Anyway, why would he not help all he could? WE certainly can’t think of a reason, which means that there must not be one. And… and… Reagan and Beirut!
            Bah.

            Please note that MMFA actually uses the phrase terrorist attack. Nice little tacit admission as their hero and all his minions told us for DAYS afterward that it was nothing of the sort, but rather a spontaneous and irrepressible response by the people of Libya who were outraged over a YouTube video. Nossir, not terrorists at all. Um… well… maybe it COULD have been terrorists, who just happened to be in the area and took advantage of the outrage – the totally understandable outrage – over the video to launch their unplanned, off-the-cuff attack. Oh, OK, it WAS terrorists and it WAS a planned attack, but we’re going to get to the bottom of it. Yessir, we’re going to get right into it with both hands… just as soon as the election is over. O’ course, they wasted not a moment locking up the guy who made the video. Another decisive move by President Gutsy Call.

            I have suggested several reasons that Barry might have decided not to intervene, ranging from fears of looking bad if it went wrong (think Mogadishu) to fears of looking bad if too many Libyans got killed to fears of looking bad for having to admit that AQ, far from being “on the ropes” (he PERSONALLY ordered the SEALs to kill bin Laden, you know), was able to launch a terrorist attack and catch us napping on the anniversary of 9-11. As your comrade Commander_Chico likes to point out, rescue missions are dicey affairs, and it looks bad when they don’t go well. Better to let a few men die than get even more killed (or captured) by sending a scratch team into a hornet’s nest. Isn’t this what Leon Panetta has basically said: “We didn’t act because we didn’t have enough info”, which is to say that they didn’t know whether a rescue team would encounter a few dozen terrorists or a few thousand?

          • Brucehenry

            Basically I was trying to show you that there is the FOX view — the worst possible interpretation of Obama’s actions and inactions — and the MMfA view — the BEST possible interpretation of Obama’s actions and inactions. See? Two sides (or more) to the story.

            As for me, I don’t think that there’s anything wrong with NOT wanting to repeat Mogadishu, and I don’t think there’s anything wrong with NOT “collaterally” killing hundreds or maybe thousands of Libyan civilians on the VERY remote chance that an F16 or an AC130 could have made the difference and saved one or two American lives. Instead, help that was locally available WAS sent. Indeed, the two CIA contractors, the former SEALs, were PART of that effort.

            “…rescue missions are dicey affairs, and it looks bad when they don’t go well.” Yes, it looks bad, and it also IS bad.

            And also “Better to let a few men die than to get even more killed (or captured) by sending a crack team into a hornet’s nest.” Umm, well, ISN’T it?

            But, as you say, saying so would be interpreted as “Obama values Arab (muslim) lives over American lives!” and perhaps cost him the election. So maybe that WAS the reason for sticking to the “video” story. Cowardly? Maybe…if true.

            But it still doesn’t make the president a bloodthirsty ghoul who jerked off to a video feed of American deaths, as some would have us believe.

            As for the tenor of the MMfA article, well, I happen to agree with them that Republican rumor-mongering, finger-pointing, lie-repeating, and monday-morning-quarterbacking has been shameless and shameful.

          • Commander_Chico_Cognoscente

            The issues of the cause of the attack and the response to it are separate. After all, they should want to rescue the DOS and CIA people whether the attack was motivated by a video or by an Al Qaeda plan, shouldn’t they?

            The lies that have been thrown about the response to the attack for political propaganda purposes are tremendous and should trouble you as a veteran.

            Examples: General Ham was relieved for wanting to execute a rescue mission. There were AC-130s (or fighter jets) in Sigonella or even overhead Benghazi and Obama ordered they do nothing. There was a drone with missiles overhead Benghazi and Obama ordered no action. There were commandos available but Obama told them to do nothing.

            These were blatant agitprop lies on a Soviet scale, promulgated repeatedly on this blog and other right-wing party organs.

            The saps who swallow this crap are like the Truthers. It was a controlled demolition, man . . . .

            As for why information was not instantly released: I am sure you know that movement orders and disposition of U.S. forces, especially special operations forces are classified at least Secret. Not to mention that CIA personnel were involved and among the dead. Frankly, if all of the steps which were taken described in today’s NYT were released the day or two after, it would have seemed like a breach of OPSEC and political grandstanding to me.

          • Henry Vandenburgh

            Let’s hear about the air assets, and find out why several flag officers were relieved right after that.

  • Sheik Yur Bouty

    Brucehenry’s ASSinine concern trolling in 3, 2, 1…

  • Henry Vandenburgh

    General Ken Keen was just interviewed by Robert Siegel on NPR. What’s telling is that he made no mention of air assets whatsoever. “The quickest reaction forces would have come from CONUS or Europe.” Smelly. This does sort of fit Sowell’s model.

  • lasveraneras

    The following is from a foreignpolicy.com article on the fact that sensitive documents are STILL being found in the Benahazi Tactical Operations Center where Chris Stevens perished. Here is the concluding paragraph from the article:

    “One of the two white toilets [in the Stevens residence] is covered with bloodstains. On the mirror in the bathroom, an unknown person has written a macabre text in a thin layer of ash. “I am Chris from the dead,” it reads.”

    As a retired FSO, I can say our prayers are with you, Chris.

  • GarandFan

    NPR just wants to protect it’s funding source.

  • Meiji_man

    After this election it’s time to start going after news networks.
    NPR is a bad target, but if conservatives boycotted EVERY sponsor on MSNBC the network would fold.

  • ExSubNuke

    You know what really blows my mind? Bush continuing to read My Pet Goat for 7 minutes was proof positive of a failure of leadership. Obama failing to act for 7 HOURS, however, is completely kosher to the lame stream media.

    • Vagabond661

      And then falsely blaming a video.

  • Commander_Chico_Cognoscente

    Does it inflict emotional pain on the bereaved families of the dead to publish blatantly false stories of AC-130s sitting in Sigonella, or commandos ready for action nearby Libya, when there were none? Just for political gain?

    Just asking.

    This whole right-wing thing about 9/11/12 now resembles the Truthers about 9/11/01. I haven’t seen a credible scenario of a rescue mission which could have been decided upon, mobilized, planned and executed within seven hours.

    It’s all based on ignorance, false assumptions and outright lies about the available U.S. forces in Europe.

    Latest AP timeline:

    http://news.yahoo.com/timeline-events-surrounding-libya-rescue-effort-000302910.html

    .

    • Carl

      They don’t have a candidate to run for President — it’s all about ABO — and they hate Obama so much…. they don’t care about bereaving families… they’ve got a white house that needs “whitening”….

      • Sky__Captain

        Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

        Your race card is overdrawn, Grumpy little troll!

        • Carl

          Racists tell me that all the time.

          • Sky__Captain

            Yeah, I’ll bet.
            You just called me a racist with absolutely no proof.

            I demand a retraction and apology. Right now.

          • jim_m

            Racists tell me that all the time.

            Then you should stop talking to yourself.

  • Carl

    Wow – it’s true. They travel in pairs and mate. Is there no hope for the real America? Are we destined to become an Amerika where loud-mouthed hateful bigots rule the land?

    Luckily, signs point to No.

    “The latest polls released over the last 72 hours now show President Obama winning seven out of the ten key swing states in the 2012 presidential election. The polls show Romney winning Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia, but Obama holding on to the key state of the Ohio along with the other six swing states. If the polls hold true on Election Day, Obama would easily obtain the 270 electoral votes he needs for re-election.”

    Obama is moving away and Romney falling behind.

    Quick! Where’s Trump with his “I Hate America” tour of birthers, racists and slobs? Can’t we generate some HEAT here to bring Obama to his knees where he belongs?

    Shit! You mean we can’t make up lies fast enough to win an election?

    Even when we line up rich, fat white guy millionaires who are willing to blow millions on PAC ads full of lies?

    What is our Amerika coming to, fellow Teabaggers? If we don’t stop Obama, we won’t be able to put women in their place! We won’t be able to deny health care to the poor and the working poor. We won’t be able to get those 47% like soldiers in the field of battle and senior citizens on retirement off the welfare/social security teet! We won’t be able to chase those brown skinned children of immigrants back across the border to a country they’ve never visited just because we hate their parents so much.

    What the hell is happening? WE’RE LOSING THE ELECTION!

    • Sky__Captain

      “What the hell is happening? WE’RE LOSING THE ELECTION!”

      We know you you are, Grumpy little troll.
      Just hang on a few more days, and it will all be over. Your 0bama will join the ash heap of history.

      • Carl

        yeah, let’s burn down the Obama white house, baby.

        Shock and Awe got nothing on Lie and Steal. GOP 2012 – boo yah!

        • 914

          Someone put this nasty troll Carl back in his cave.

    • Sky__Captain

      Memo to Carl the Grumpy Troll:

      http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/11/03/Obama-Cleveland-80k-compared-to-4k

      If 0bama gets 1/20 the attendees in 2012 than he did in 2008 (in a Democrat stronghold, no less), what does that say about his supporters’ excitement to actually support him?
      Are they raaaaacist?

      • Carl

        You just called me a racist. I demand an apology, right now.

        lol!

        • Sky__Captain

          Memo to Carl, the raaaaacist troll:
          When accusing someone of being racist, expect to have demanded of one a retraction and apology.
          Otherwise, a meeting with Olaf’s Troll Hammer may occur.

          I expect an immediate retraction and apology as a result of your earlier accusation.
          Right now.

  • LiberalNightmare

    Any word on this from big bird?

    • Carl

      Big Bird has been on a drinking binge ever since Romney declared he intended to make sure preschool children don’t have access to free, over-the-air educational television.

      The big yellow guy just doesn’t understand why Romney hates poor people so much.

      • Sky__Captain

        0bama likes poor people so much he has gone out of his way to create many more. Many, many more…

      • LiberalNightmare

        Anybody who thinks big bird is free, needs to follow their mother to toys r us sometime.

Optimization WordPress Plugins & Solutions by W3 EDGE