It’s a First Amendment issue.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (First Amendment to the US Constitution)
- Admit Nothing
- Deny Everything
- Demand Proof
- Make Counter-allegations
- Denounce Someone Else (find a scapegoat)
(News Busters) SHARYL ATTKISSON: I think one of the things that working in Washington has aggravated me when trying to get to the truth. This is true across administrations, whether they’re Democrats or Republicans. They seem to have lost sight of the fact that they work for us, not the other way around. And I think we the public are owed a lot of information, collected and gathered on our behalf, such as information floating around about Benghazi. And it’s guarded by the holders and the keepers of the information, as if they somehow own it and hold the privilege over you that you can’t see it.
For example, Freedom of Information requests that I’ve made. That act has now been used, instead of to facilitate the release of public information, which was its intention – it’s now in my opinion been used to withhold and delay the release of public information. I get pretty much zero response. That didn’t start under the Obama administration. He seems to have perfected it, he and the federal agencies. But this was true also under George Bush. It’s very difficult to get public information, even when you apply the Freedom of Information law.…ATTKISSON: Who made the decision not to convene the Counter-terrorism Security group the night of the Benghazi attacks, which we understand is protocol under presidential directive in SPD-46. Why was the protocol not followed? I’ve gotten a partial answer to that from the White House before they quit talking to me altogether. They said they felt it wasn’t needed, that all the proper advisors on counter-terrorism were in the mix.
Attkisson (CBS News) as a target
“I can confirm that an intrusion of my computers has been under some investigation on my end for some months but I’m not prepared to make an allegation against a specific entity today as I’ve been patient and methodical about this matter,” Attkisson told POLITICO on Tuesday. “I need to check with my attorney and CBS to get their recommendations on info we make public.”
The part that bothers me the most, is that Panetta, et al, said that a military response would not have arrived in time.
Did they know, when the events were unfolding, at what time they would end? Obviously, we know why they didn't send them, we know what they wanted to hide. But when they push that false narrative, its with the consent of press…
It may be a bit unfair to throw the press under the bus with the first false narrative because the media was simply throwing a camera in somebody's face for the first week or so. After that, the Obama media pressure began to be applied and the press sort of shut down — coverage was becoming "constrained". Now that the White House narrative is "that was all a very long time ago, let's move on," we're seeing the whistle blowers coming forward with attorneys. And when the press delve, USGOV calls them co-conspirators.
Panetta simply followed orders. He spent his career being an affable drone. That's why he took Petraeus' place at CIA. The FBI is monolithic. CIA is the opposite and the many headed hydra sort of operates the way it operates no matter who the director is.
I have enjoyed reading your post. It is well written. It looks like you spend a large amount of time and effort on your blog. I appreciate your effort. Please check out my site.
Utah tax attorney
Comments are closed.