Take the Benghazi test - does your media source give you all the news?

In a recent revelation, it was discovered that a senior American diplomat who died during the George W. Bush administration was actually killed in a terrorist attack. The Bush White House presented the story as though the official had a heart attack.

If you’ve been paying attention to the news lately, you may already suspect that the preceding paragraph is not true – that it is political fiction based on a real event that occurred a little more than a month ago. The question to ask yourself is, “How much do you know about the terrorist attack in Libya and what does your level of knowledge say about the media sources you’ve chosen to get your news?”

Some might suspect that, since the story is potentially harmful to the president’s campaign for reelection, considerable airtime on FOXNews and conservative talk radio is to be expected. But, would those same people concede that liberal media sources, such as CNN, MSNBC and the New York Times, to name a few, would likewise give the story less coverage for the same reason?

Who, reading the fictional story at the top of this page would argue that the liberal media would not be all over a story of this kind if it involved the potential for incompetence and/or a cover up during a conservative administration?

For those who feel the hair rising on the back of their necks as they read this, a good test is to consider the timeline of what has occurred before, during and after the attack at our consulate in Benghazi. After reading the complete timeline, it should quickly become apparent that this is not a partisan story; this is the story of an American tragedy and a security failure at the hands of violent anti-American terrorists.

And so, the suggestion is that you read through this list and then ask yourself, “Where do I get my news?” You might also ask if you have an open mind. Just click on the link below to take the test:

http://constitutionalamerica.blogspot.com/2012/10/benghazi-attack-timeline.html

Yes, that is a very long list. And, as long as it is, there are still more parts missing. But, what’s really missing are answers to questions about: the security failure and why requests for more security were denied while, in fact, security forces were pulled out of the region; how the administration could maintain the false narrative about the video as the impetus for the attack for so long in spite of security to the contrary.

Even if there was a communication breakdown between the White House and the State Department and intelligence, couldn’t the Obama administration get a sense of a differing perspective from those organizations based on what they were saying to Congress and the media? The video story lasted long after any reasonable argument was left to defend it.

And that brings up another very good question: “Why the cover up?”

Some have suggested the cover up is because, this close to an election, it would not go over well to have Al Qaeda so explicitly demonstrate that they’re not quite done yet. Others would argue that it doesn’t play well in terms of the entire narrative from the White House about an effective foreign policy. And still, it doesn’t seem to shine brightly on the administration in terms of competence.

Whatever the answers to the questions above, you can’t blame anyone for asking unless you blame the administration for failing to short circuit the questions with plausible answers that leave no room for such questions.