Tet Offensive. Watergate. Hostage Crisis. Iran/Contra. Every administration has a major foreign policy crisis. Obama's was the murder of the American ambassador to Libya at the hands of jihadists. I say "was" because, at least for the moment, the mainstream media successfully spun Obama's massive problem into a Romney defeat.
First, the facts. On September 11, Ambassador Chris Stephens was killed along with three embassy "staff" when armed protesters attacked the American embassy in Benghazi. He was only the sixth American ambassador to be murdered while in office, and the first since 1979.
Because President Obama has been dogged by criticism that, like one-term president Jimmy Carter, he's weak on foreign policy (particularly in the Middle East), the mainstream media leapt to his defense. Almost miraculously, it diverted all the negative attention onto Mitt Romney and Christianity.
The press effectively slammed the door on any high-profile investigations into the incident, even though questions are rife. Why was security at the consulate not beefed up for September 11th? Why did we ignore the warning of a Libyan official three days before? If the attack spontaneously occurred over outrage over an anti-Islamic video, why did it seem so organized and why were the attackers so well armed? How did they know about Ambassador Stephens' safe house location? Why can't we get a straight story how he died? Isn't it a bit of a coincidence that the attacks happened on September 11th? Was the attack perpetrated by people armed by the U.S. government during the Libyan civil war?
If this happened under George W. Bush's watch, would the media cut him slack if his administration ignored warnings over the attack? If he went to bed while the attack was ongoing, as President Obama is said to have done, would they offer some criticism? They'd be calling for his impeachment. They'd be digging into the story weeks and months later. After all, the New York Times ran 32 consecutive front page stories on the much less severe incident at Abu Ghraib.
Instead, they turned the story into a criticism on Mitt Romney's handling of the crisis. That's right--Mitt Romney, who isn't even president. He supposedly criticized Obama too early. Furthermore, they ignored radical Islamist violence and placed the blame for the region-wide violent protest on the video. Finally, they attempted to cast the couple of lunatics that made the video as representatives of mainstream Christianity. In one day, the Los Angeles Times published the following stories:
None of the stories mention Obama's handling of the situation, and each makes excuses for the Mideast violence, namely the video. The "film", a cheesy low-budget high-school -quality YouTube upload, was made by a Coptic Christian--Egyptian-American Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, hardly the representative of mainstream American Christianity the media would have you believe. Finally, the only time radical Islamist violence was mentioned by the Times in a headline was the lack of it (Iranians protest film mocking Muhammad; no violence reported).
The LA Times was not alone in covering for President Obama. Remember--the New York Times ran 32 front page stories on Abu Ghraib. The media completely ignored Obama's role in this current crisis even though questions abound. Reporters were even caught coordinating questions to pin down Romney down on his response to the gaffe the manufactured for him.
This week, the Obama campaign diverted attention from the foreign affairs crisis even more by leaking video of Romney saying that 47% of the American public is dependent on the government and is not going to vote for him.
Once again, the liberal media caught the pass and ran downfield with it. Once again the LA Times to the rescue:
I think the Times' reporters are too busy covering that story than investigating any of the seriously troubling questions still unanswered in the wake of the ambassador's death.