Shortly after long-time Clinton operative John Podesta joined President Obama’s staff, it became apparent that he had two primary tasks: restoring the White House’s reputation, which was justifiably tarnished after the Benghazi bungle, and rescuing Hillary’s presidential hopes, which took a dive following the same disaster.
Podesta was able to use his rock-solid media contacts to convince the New York Times to print a puff piece resurrecting the completely discredited Administration claim that the attack was a spontaneous event sparked by an obscure video that even some Arab sources noted was unknown until the White House latched onto to it as an excuse. Indeed, even Libya’s president, Mohamed Magariaf, has stated that the event was a preplanned terrorist assault.
Despite the best efforts of the biased media, the Benghazi incident remains fresh in the minds of many. An American ambassador, his courageous protectors, and others were intentionally left wholly on their own over a nine hour period by the Obama Administration during a fierce attack.
As was revealed on the Vernuccio/Allison Report, pleas by security personnel for more assistance in the month prior to the attack were ignored by Clinton’s State Department. Retired Army Special Forces Lt. Colonel Andrew Wood, (his Congressional testimony may be read here) who was the site security team commander in Libya from Feb. 12 to August 14 2012, just weeks before the 9/11/12 attack that resulted in the death of U.S. Ambassador Stevens, clearly stated that requests for additional security for United States facility in Benghazi before the attack were denied, and that in direct contradiction to repeated White House claims, American military forces could have been used to rescue U.S. personnel there.
These deaths are completely and totally attributable to the inexplicable actions of President Obama and Hillary Clinton.
American air, sea and land forces were within reach of the site, but were apparently forbidden to do their duty, much to the distress of Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine officers who could have saved these lives.
In the aftermath of the disaster, President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton blatantly lied about the cause of the attack, and the ability of America's military to respond to it. They lied from the White House the day after the attack, they lied at the solemn ceremony when the bodies were brought home, and they lied about it to the whole world at the United Nations.
To further that deception, the Obama Administration prompted the imprisonment of an individual connected to that video, a chilling assault on the First Amendment.
Secretary Clinton dispatched her chief of staff to intimidate survivors and others from telling the truth to Congress. Secretary Clinton perjured herself in testimony about Benghazi before the United States Congress. President Obama lied again at a press conference recently, when he claimed he knew nothing about the unlawful intimidation.
There is a barely a journalistic ethic some in the media have not broken in defense of Clinton and Obama’s Benghazi disaster. The day after the explosive Congressional Benghazi hearings, clearly one of the most spectacular news stories of the decade, several major newspapers printed not a single word about it. That's a cover-up on a scale unprecedented in American history.
The practice of trying to cover-up horrendous mistakes is nothing new in politics. However, the extent of some of the media’s extraordinary complicity bodes ill for the future.
But something other than surveillance appears to be happening. S.A. Miller has published a report indicating that the private email accounts of a whistleblower who let the public know about official wrongdoing in the State Department during Secretary Clinton’s tenure there was not just examined but tampered with. To the disappointment of privacy advocates, the courts have been reluctant to intervene in Washington’s disdain for the Fourth Amendment.
Of course, most would give federal authorities a lot of leeway in acting to prevent terrorism or other threats by peeking at certain accounts. But the massive intrusion into the private information of millions of American citizens without anything resembling a valid excuse is unacceptable.
This media-White House relationship, cemented both by ideological affinity as well as the possibility of oppressive acts by federal agencies, is a severe threat to the First Amendment.