ABC NEWS’ TAPPER ADMITS DERELICTION IN LIBERAL MEDIA’S FAILURE TO COVER BENGHAZI

MISSION NOT ACCOMPLISHED – At 3:42 p.m. on September 11, 2012, America was attacked by terrorists in Benghazi, Libya resulting in the murder of four Americans and the possible exposure of covert CIA operations in the region.  Until that day, by howling its own version of the oft criticized Bush-era “Mission Accomplished” banner, the fraudulently elected Obama administration had persistently claimed that America, under Obama, had defeated Al-Qaeda and had the terrorist organization on the run after the alleged killing of terror leader, Osama Bin Laden, in May, 2011.

 

Since then, only one news network, Fox News, has attempted to provide the American people with viable reporting of the events in Benghazi while the pro-Obama networks have allowed misrepresentations and lies to emanate from the criminal regime without challenge apparently in an attempt to help Obama avoid scrutiny before the election on November 6.

Now, further demonstrating the pro-Obama liberal media is nothing more than a Nazi-like propaganda wing of Obama’s usurped executive branch, ABC News’ Jake Tapper has labeled blatant lies from White House about Benghazi as nothing more than merely “prominent theories” and says the reason his media genus refused to cover the story was because they “didn’t want to interfere with a positive narrative about Al Qaeda”.

 

by Dan Crosby

of The Daily Pen

NEW YORK, NY – According to ABC News’ Senior White House correspondent, Jake Tapper, the liberal mainstream media are guilty of dereliction in their failure to report on the murder of four innocent Americans in a terrorist attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya because they believe the attack was far less important than protecting Barack Obama’s political image.

 

Citing the reasons for the pro-Obama media's negligence in an interview with CNN’s Piers Morgan on Wednesday, Tapper said, "They didn’t want to interfere with [the Obama administration’s] positive narrative about Al Qaeda.”

“They didn’t want to interfere with [the Obama administration’s] positive narrative about Al Qaeda.” Jake Tapper, ABC News Sr. WH Correspondent

As terrorists were overrunning the U.S. mission complex in Benghazi, Libya and murdering Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others, including CIA security operative Tyrone Woods and QRF agent, Glen Doherty, the media was intentionally ignoring the danger, thus hiding the information from the American people, in order to prevent the public from possibly criticizing Obama for his failure to respond. 

Based on the evidence, there are three instances of failure by the Obama administration which the liberal media has refused to cover. 

1.    The Obama administration’s incompetence in providing increased security measures during the months leading up to the attack despite at least two previous attacks on the complex in April and June, as well as multiple requests from U.S. mission personnel in Benghazi, including an explicit written request from Ambassador Stevens sent directly to Secretary of State Clinton in August, asking for increased security.  These requests were preceded by outright warnings from Stevens and his personnel onsite that the U.S. mission complex could not be defended with current security measures in the event of a coordinated terrorist attack.  The Obama administration ignored these requests presumably because Obama did not want to convey a message of hostility and elevated military presence which, in his view, would send a message that terrorists were still a threat to Americans, despite his lies to the contrary.

2.    The Obama administration’s failure to respond during the attack on September 11, despite multiple “flash traffic” notifications from Africom command in North Africa and Europe stating that the U.S. mission complex and CIA annex were under attack.  The Obama administration apparently also ignored pleas for help from besieged U.S. mission and CIA personnel on the ground as they were being fired upon and burned alive in the compound.   Evidence shows that White House situation room personnel and State Department personnel were being updated and watching live video feeds of the attack in real time indicating they had ample opportunity to order a counter attack from military and rescue forces stationed less than 50 miles away.  The Obama administration ignored these pleas for help, allowing four Americans to be murdered, in order to conceal possible covert CIA operations and protect the Obama administration’s political reputation leading up to the 2012 election.

3.    The Obama administration’s blatant lies over a period of more than four weeks that the attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya was the result of a protest by offended Muslims reacting to an obscure anti-Islamic YouTube video.  Members of the administration, including Barack Obama, Sec. of State Hillary Clinton, Sec. of Defense, Leon Panetta, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Gen. David Patraeus and U.N. Ambassador, Susan Rice, all intentionally lied about the attack in order to conceal the fact that it was a coordinated terrorist attack against a covert CIA installation and U.S. mission complex involved in sensitive negotiations with foreign diplomats and militant groups in the region. 

On September 25th, just two weeks after the attack, Barack Obama lied to the U.N. assembly when he stated that the attack was caused by a spontaneous riot because of the video.  Obama cited the video six different times during his address.  During the presidential debate on October 3, Obama claims that he acknowledged terrorism as the cause of the attack during his 9/11 Memorial Rose Garden address on September 12^th.  This was also a lie.  A review of the transcript of his address reveals that he did not directly associate terrorism with the 9/11 attack in Benghazi but rather made the association of terrorism with the 9/11 attacks in New York in 2001.   During his Rose Garden address, Obama was speaking about the 9/11 attacks in New York in 2001 when he said, "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for."

He then added a paragraph to separately address the Benghazi attack but did not use the word terrorism in that stanza.  Obama did not publicly associate the terms "terrorism" and "Benghazi" in the same reference until October 27^th, just days before he was fraudulently re-elected to office.  

Director of the CIA, General David Patraeus cited the video in his address to a House Intelligence committee just three days after the attack on September 14th.  It is now suspected that his testimony was vulnerable to coercion by the Obama administration because he was the subject of a secret investigation by the FBI for an extramarital affair with biographer, Paula Broadwell.  It was learned recently that Patraeus actually visited the site of the Benghazi attack just weeks after it occurred during which he consulted with eyewitnesses who most certainly briefed him that the attack was the result of coordinated terrorists, not a spontaneous protest.  Based on the circumstances surrounding Patraeus, it is likely that he was blackmailed and lied to protect his reputation and his job as CIA director under threats of exposure by the administration.

Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta both lied about the attack on September 17^th during an address to the media at the State Department.  Hillary Clinton called the video “disgusting” and “offensive” saying the government had nothing to do with its production.  Clinton has since avoided all media inquiry about the Benghazi scandal. 

U.N. Ambassador Rice appeared on five separate Sunday news programs citing the video as the cause of the attack.  Obama administration officials have since come to her defense saying her appearance was specifically requested by the White House because she was not attached to the situation.  Rice’s testimony has fallen under intense criticism by lawmakers after Barack Obama defended her, saying she had nothing to do with the events in Benghazi, causing many to then question, therefore, her qualifications to even address the situation on the Sunday news shows.  

Tapper attempted to excuse Ambassador Rice from her responsibility for repeating the administration’s lies by saying that she was only conveying a “prominent theory” about what happened during the September 11 attacks on the U.S. mission complex in Benghazi, Libya.  However, Tapper has long known that the administration knew before Rice’s appearance that the attack was the result of terrorists and that the CIA was involved.

It has become irrefutable that the liberal mainstream media in American, and around the world, is under a primary directive to protect the precious image of Barack Obama even if it means violating the tenets of objectivity and factual evidence.  Tapper, like many pro-Obama media activists, has a long and distinguished track record of refusing to challenge the lies coming out of the Obama White House and is widely recognized as a milquetoast fence-sitter when it comes to fulfilling his primary journalistic directive of speaking truth to liberal power.  However, a review of Tapper’s reporting during the Bush administration shows he was aggressive in challenging Republicans, especially when the truth from conservatives damaged the promotion of a liberal narrative.  Tapper’s favorable reporting in support of those involved in the “Journo-list” scandal and the rigging of Global Warming data story are two examples of his leftist orientation.

In the CNN interview, Morgan theorized a possible reason the media refused to cover the Benghazi story was that there “may well just have been the narrative for the White House running for the election of ‘we are defeating al Qaeda’, is not helped if it looks like an al Qaeda type resurgence was up against the ambassador in Benghazi and, indeed, led to his death.”

Tapper agreed, saying, “The Benghazi story…was so politicized with the White House and the administration in a defensive crouch, because they thought every word they said would be twisted and unfairly attacked.  And they didn't obviously want to interfere with a positive narrative about al Qaeda.”

“And Republicans putting out conspiracy theories, some of them not rooted in any facts or evidence, that it was tough to report on this.  Because both sides were not acting normally, as one would hope they would.”