When White House spokesman Jay Carney continued Friday to cling desperately to the fairy tale that the administration had not substantively altered the CIA talking points on the Benghazi attack — ABC News has released evidence that the talking points were revised 12 times to hide the truth of the attack — some in the media wanted to downplay Carney’s fable.
“Jay Carney has got caught saying something that wasn’t completely true,” liberal commentator David Corn meekly admitted on one talking heads show.
“That’s called a lie, David,” responded Danielle Pletka of the American Enterprise Institute.
Even Watergate legend Carl Bernstein quickly came to Obama’s defense after the IRS admitted targeting conservative groups, saying he “can’t imagine” the outrageous and frightening tactic could’ve had the president’s blessing.
Really Carl? ...
Beyond that, we’re all aware by now of the love affair much of the media have had with this president. They’ve even admitted they gave him favorable coverage — and the favoritism was so obvious so early on that Saturday Night Live performed a skit in which reporters offered him a pillow to be comfortable in a 2008 primary debate with Hillary Clinton.
Obama also has benefited indirectly from the manic, unfocused attention of most media outlets, who run from sensational local story to sensational local story (e.g., Jodi Arias, the Cleveland kidnapping). Now that the victims in the Cleveland case have asked for privacy, will the media leave a place where they’re not wanted — and finally go to a place (the Benghazi and IRS scandals) where they’re actually needed?
For now it appears inevitable. ...
Some also allege the Benghazi lies are covering up an Obama administration gun-running operation that would be illegal — can you say Iran-Contra? — and at the very least highly hypocritical for an administration intent on gun control here at home.
It will be interesting to see how much interest the media take in all this.