wpostServer: http://css.washingtonpost.com/wpost2

Most Read: Opinions

direct signup

Today’s Opinions poll

Should Congress deal with the immigration crisis -- tens of thousands of unaccompanied minors at the border -- before its August recess?

Submit
Next
Review your answers and share

Join a Discussion

Weekly schedule, past shows

Post Partisan
Posted at 04:10 PM ET, 10/31/2012

Benghazi who? The media ignores the truth

Well it’s another day for the Lamestream Media such as PostScript and David Ignatius to ignore the Obama administration’s incredibly impeachable offenses in the Benghazi debacle in September. We ignore them so thoroughly that, this being a Lamestream Media site, none of you have even heard of Benghazi or Obama’s amazingly vast impeachable offenses, whatever those may be. They’re super impeachable, and the Lamestream Media is ignoring them, is the point.

Ignatius managed to write an entire column on Benghazi while ignoring the issue completely, something he has done several times, which never fails to impress PostScript. She has heard a lot of comments, callers, voice mails and letters deploring how no one is talking about Benghazi, but she rarely sees a journalist commit so thoroughly to not talking about Benghazi, even in his own column about Benghazi. Indeed, PostScript learned from the comments on this column, not only does the column not exist, but it also could have been written by the Obama administration, carries water for the administration, and is just one more cover-up. The only existing stories about Benghazi are found on Fox News and Web sites with names like ISureHateJournalists.com. And until we run THOSE stories in the Post, we will forevermore be ignoring this important story.

WHEW. The PostScript Bunker is glad to have that off the PostScript Bunker’s chest. It tends to gather like fog and weigh everything down. PostScript can now continue like a normal person.

Yes, these comments, and telephone calls, and letters, and e-mails, and voice mails have been arriving in bursts, as though part of a campaign, and they tend to come coupled with remarks that the writer never respected The Post anyway and goes elsewhere for news (though to us when they’d rather supply commentary.) As the great Karen Tumulty tweeted just seconds ago, as PostScript was busy freaking out, above:

@ktumulty: Dear people who keep e-mailing me: A #wapo website search of “Benghazi” brings up 478 results in last 60 days.

There are a couple more things you could do to keep the Lamestream Media ignoring you: Write unproven assertions or debunked Internet myths as if they are facts (the sexual assault of Ambassador Chris Stevens is PostScript’s unfavorite); accompany your really incredible insight and unpublished info on the situation with a lot of unrelated Obama invective; time your complaints with 400 of your similarly worded buddies all in the span of 15 minutes.

(NOTE TO POSTSCRIPT’S BASE: SHE DOESN’T MEAN YOU.)

WHEW. Okay, Bunker Chest totally clear now, PostScript promises. You can no longer wound her.

Voice_of_Reason speculates as to why we’re still waiting for answers to Ignatius’s questions. It might be the fallout from the political problems they got by speaking too soon about the attacks last time:

When bad things happen, if you point the finger, you better know what you are talking about!! If you politicize those issues, you are the one that is going look guilty.

aaronweiner thinks even Ignatius’s curiosity is unseemly, that he might be co-opted by the purported scandal:

I’m going with the entire military and diplomatic establishment that’s standing together in unison saying that this is a terrible, tragic event and that there was nothing they could, or should, have done.
Yes, I understand the curiosity about the situation, and yes, I’d like a timeline of events, too. But to get on board with this conspiracy nonsense means, apparently, that Mr. Ignatius — like the rest of us — has been saturated with the conspiracy nonsense enough times that it takes on a fig leaf of plausibility.

Kayadogg thinks the complaints are keeping people from paying more attention:

Actually, it probably goes to the same place as Fast & Furious — tragic but overused for political purposes.

SteveR1 wishes this column had a more eye-catching headline:

Hurricane Sandy is the crisis of the moment that deserves coverage. But in terms of the Benghazi boondoggle look at the (large eye-catching) headlines: “Storm provides Obama with a commander-in-chief moment.” and “Romney goes off-road with the truth”. I hope that the significance of the Benghazi boondoggle is not lost to the general population.

And edbyronadams makes an interesting point: The secrecy works for Mitt Romney:

Even without a full accounting by the president for who made the decision to stand down, which we are never going to get before Tuesday, this story provides a good get-out-the-vote motivator for his opposition.

PostScript, cynical hack that she is, would go ever further: If the administration released its timeline of events answering Ignatius’s questions say, today, would anyone really believe it wouldn’t be sanitized and spun? If it exonerated the administration, who would believe it was a full accounting? If it was slightly damning, we’d assume the truth is way worse. It would have to be a full-on admission from Barack Obama that he has been al-Qaeda all this time for us to believe it was the real whole entire report. Even if it looked like a treat, it would be impossible not to feel like we were being tricked.

By Rachel Manteuffel  |  04:10 PM ET, 10/31/2012

 
Read what others are saying
     

    © 2011 The Washington Post Company